Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PORT OF LONDON BILL (By Order)

Lords Amendments further considered.

Question again proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

WEST RIDING COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL

Standing Order 208 (Notice of consideration of Lords Amendments) suspended; Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly and agreed to.

WELSH SHIPPING AGENCY BILL [Lords]

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Welsh Shipping Agency Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend further Proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Promoters of the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further Proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid.

Ordered,
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session.

Ordered,
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that a declaration as mentioned above has been deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been

so read) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make only such Amendments thereto as have been made by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report the Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table.

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any Proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session.

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

To be communicated to the Lords.

SHELL COMPANY OF EGYPT BILL

So much of the Lords Message [28th July] as relates to the Shell Company of Egypt Bill considered.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Shell Company of Egypt Bill shall have leave to suspend Proceedings thereon in order to proceed with that Bill in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further Proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That not later than Five o'clock on the third day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;

Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a Declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its Proceeding in this House in the present Session;

Ordered,
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the causes of Her Majesty's calling the Parliament have been declared thereunto and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read; and shall be ordered to be read the third time;

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any Proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

To be communicated to the Lords.

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)

Ordered,
That the Amendments to Standing Orders relating to Private Business hereinafter stated in Schedule (A) be made, that the Standing Order hereinafter stated in Schedule (B) be repealed, and that the new Standing Order relating to Private Business hereinafter stated in Schedule (C) be made.

Schedule (A)—Amendments to Standing Orders

Standing Order 1, line 7, after "a", insert "London or".

Line 31, at end insert "(dd) the Greater London Council".

Line 33, after "a", insert "London or".

Line 37, leave out from "means" to end of line 38 and insert "Greater London".

Standing Order 2A, line 3, leave out "London County" and insert "Greater London".

Standing Order 4A, line 13, leave out "(unless that county is London)".

Line 20, leave out "except London".

Line 38, after "means", insert "the Greater London Council".

Line 40, after "a", insert "London or".

Standing Order 10, line 37, at end add "(6) This Order shall apply to Greater London as if it were a county".

Standing Order 16, line 22, at end add "or, as the case may be, with the clerk of the Greater London Council".

Standing Order 25, leave out lines 18 to 22 and add "Greater London Council, the London County Council, the Common Council of the City of London or the council of a county borough, London borough or county district".

Standing Order 27, line 77, at end add "(8) This Order shall apply to Greater London as if it were a county and as if the clerk of the Greater London Council were the clerk of the county council".

Standing Order 31, line 7, leave out "Admiralty" and insert "Ministry of Defence (Navy Department)".

Standing Order 36, line 11, after "any", insert "London,"

Standing Order 39, line 5, leave out "Air Ministry" and insert "Ministry of Defence".

Line 6, after the second "of", insert "Public Building and".

Line 14, leave out "Admiralty" and insert "Ministry of Defence (Navy Department)".

Line 15, leave out "company, body or".

Line 16, at end insert "and affecting in any way the operations of that person in".

Leave out lines 17 to 34 and insert—
(a) any part of Her Majesty's dominions outside the United Kingdom other than the countries mentioned in subsection (3) of section 1 of the British Nationality Act 1948, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, or
(b) a British protectorate or protected state or the New Hebrides,
at the Colonial Office".

Line 35, leave out from "which" to "relates" in line 38.

Line 43, leave out from second "or" to "affects" in line 45.

Line 47, leave out "Ministry of Education" and insert "Department of Education and Science".

Line 49, leave out "Ministry of Education" and insert "Department of Education and Science".

Standing Order 40, line 6, leave out "London County" and insert "Greater London".

Line 7, at end add "(2) Where it is proposed to authorise the construction or alteration of any work within the administrative county of London a copy of the bill shall also be deposited at the office of the London County Council".

Standing Order 47, line 27, after "are", insert "the City of".

Line 28, after "boroughs" insert "(other than metropolitan boroughs)".

Line 29, leave out "and outside London".

Standing Order 60, line 8, after "with", insert "Greater London Council and".

Leave out lines 12 to 14.

Standing Order 61, line 48, at end add: "(4) This Order shall apply to Greater London as if it were a county and as if the clerk of the Greater London Council were the clerk of the county council".

Standing Order 62, line 12, leave out "(other than London)".

Standing Order 65, line 24, leave out "(other than London)".

Standing Order 70, line 2, leave out "London County "and insert" Greater London".

Standing Order 98, line 9, at end add "(2) This Order shall apply to Greater London as if it were a county and as for the words from 'county road' to 'contribute' there were substituted the word 'road'".

Standing Order 144, line 13, leave out "the Admiralty".

Standing Order 155, line 5, leave out "or".

After "Transport", insert "or the Minister of Power".

Standing Order 180, line 7, after "with", insert "Greater London Council and".

Leave out lines 11 to 13.

Standing Order 220, line 1, leave out "London County" and insert "Greater London".

Line 2, leave out "the London County Council (Loans) Act, 1955" and insert "paragraphs 25 to 29 of the Second Schedule to the London Government Act, 1963".

Line 8, leave out "the London County Council (Loans) Act, 1955" and insert "those paragraphs".

Line 9, leave out "the same" and insert "those paragraphs".

Line 10, after "amending", insert "those paragraphs or".

Leave out lines 69 to 78.

Standing Order 221, line 1, after "act", insert "whether expressly or by virtue of an Order made under section 84 of the London Government Act, 1963"; leave out "London County" and insert "Greater London".

Line 5, leave out "London County" and insert "Greater London".

Standing Order 222, line 1, leave out "London County" and insert "Greater London".

Line 3, leave out "the consolidated loans" and insert "their General".

Standing Order 223, line 1, leave out "London County" and insert "Greater London".

Line 5, after third "the" insert "London".

Standing Order 236, leave out lines 11 to 13.

Appendix (A), line 17, leave out from second "the" to "A" in line 20 and insert "clerks of the local authorities with whom deposit is required by the Standing Orders]".

Schedule (B)—Repeal of Standing Order

Standing Order 28 (Deposit of map showing alterations of boundaries of local areas).

Schedule (C)—New Standing Order

Local authorities affected by London Government Act 1963.

(1) References in these Standing Orders to local authorities and their areas shall—

(a) in relation to a bill promoted by the Greater London Council or the council of a London borough, be construed as references to authorities and areas as they will exist on 1st April 1965 by virtue of the London Government Act 1963 or any order made under that Act;
(b) in relation to any other bill, be construed as references to authorities and areas as they exist before and as they will exist after 1st April 1965.

(2) This Order shall cease to have effect on 1st April 1965.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

PETITION

Victoria Cottage Hospital, Maryport

Mr. Peart: I beg to present a Petition which has been compiled in the County of Cumberland and signed by over 12,000 of Her Majesty's loyal subjects living in West Cumberland and especially in the town of Maryport. The purpose of the

Petition is to pray that the maternity facilities at Maryport Victoria Cottage Hospital shall be retained in full, and that the decision of the Minister of Health to approve the closure proposed by the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board shall be reversed.
I can only say that the decision to close this hospital service will cause considerable hardship in Maryport and district. It has been opposed by the Health Committee of the Cumberland County Council, by unanimous local medical opinion and by overwhelming public opinion.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Road Bridges and Tunnels

Mr. Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many major road bridge or tunnel projects were started and completed in Scotland in the six-year periods 1945 to 1951, 1951 to 1957 and 1957 to 1963; and how much in Government loans and grants these projects absorbed in each of these six-year periods.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Noble): No major road bridge or tunnel project costing over £100,000 was started or completed in the financial years from 1945 to 1951. From 1951 to 1957 five were started; from 1957 to 1963 14 were started and 17 completed. From 1951 to 1957 Government expenditure for this purpose was about £320,000 and from 1957 to 1963 nearly £23 million.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask if he can say what has been happening since the spring of 1963? Have there been any further developments?

Mr. Noble: As the House knows, the major project since then was the Tay Road Bridge, but there have been two other bridges, one at Dalhousie in Midlothian and one at Canderwater in Lanarkshire.

Mr. McInnes: Having regard to the fact that the tunnel project cost £6 million, does the Secretary of State realise that his contribution to these projects has been niggardly and mean?

Mr. Noble: I do not think the figures entirely support the hon. Member.

Tay Road Bridge

Mr. Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the Tay road bridge to be completed.

Mr. Noble: As I have already told the House, there is every prospect that the bridge will be ready for traffic by the target date of June, 1966.

School Building

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take to assist local authorities with their future plans for school building to meet the raising of the school-leaving age.

Mr. Noble: I give education authorities all the help I can to ensure that the necessary accommodation is available in time. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a recent circular which deals generally with the raising of the school-leaving age.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the extra building necessary for the raising of the school-leaving age will add yet another heavy burden to the cost of education borne by local authorities and that services are needed to see that the money is well spent? Has he any policy to suggest to local authorities in terms of centralisation or vocational courses for this extra year to help them in their planning?

Mr. Noble: My hon. Friend will see the advice I have given to local authorities when he gets the circular. Certainly there has to be a great deal of consideration of problems like the sort of courses needed before planning for new school building begins.

Mr. Ross: Is the Secretary of State aware that more than a circular is required to assist local authorities? Assurances that his approval will be forthcoming to their proposals will satisfy them even more, bearing in mind what

he has done in relation to their school building programmes hitherto—cutting, cutting, cutting.

Mr. Noble: The hon. Member has made that point before and we have discussed it often. I quite agree that a great deal will be needed in detailed discussion with the local authorities, but this is for a provision which is required in 1970–71. Therefore, there is a reasonable amount of time for detailed discussions with local authorities.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Would the Secretary of State find it convenient to issue a table indicating which local authorities are included in his Answer and how many relate to the City of Aberdeen?

Mr. Noble: I shall certainly let the hon. and learned Member have that information. I should imagine it would relate to all authorities in Aberdeen.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why he has cut the school building programme in Aberdeenshire.

Mr. Noble: As has been explained in correspondence with my hon. Friend, Aberdeenshire's share of the investment available for school building is reasonable when its needs are compared with those of other authorities.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while we appreciate the amount of school building undertaken by this Government throughout the country, a cut of this kind this year makes the provision of proper education facilities exceedingly difficult? Cannot he ensure far greater co-operation between the Scottish Office and local authorities in future to minimise this kind of cut-back?

Mr. Noble: As my hon. Friend knows, we are doing this with all local authorities on a longer time scale than before, but I think my hon. Friend also appreciates that in the last few years Aberdeenshire has been particularly fortunate because there has been extra money available, not needed by other local authorities. Therefore, it has got ahead very well with its programme.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the right hon. Gentleman name the local authorities which have not needed the money?

Mr. Noble: If the hon. Member would like to have the information, I shall certainly give it for those local authorities which did not come up to the amount of money they expected at the beginning of the year to expend.

Factory Space, New Towns

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what undertakings have been given by the new town corporations in Scotland to provide factory space for interested firms; and what employment potential this represents.

Mr. Noble: The present total employment of over 24,000 in the Scottish new towns includes 4,360 jobs in 82 firms whose premises have been provided by the Development Corporations; these firms expect to have employment for an additional 5,160 in the future.
Premises are currently being provided by the Corporations for a further 12 firms, who expect to provide 4,540 jobs. Negotiations with other firms are at various stages of progress.

Sir C. Thorton-Kemsley: While thank-ink my right hon. Friend for that satisfactory reply, may I ask if his Answer covers the new town of Livingston as well?

Mr. Noble: The new town of Livingston, I understand, has two firms which are not yet in operation but which hope to provide rather over 2,000 jobs.

New Houses

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the annual average figure for completions of new houses in Scotland between 1951 and 1963; and what is the target for 1965 and thereafter.

Mr. Noble: The average number of houses completed annually by all agencies in Scotland between 1951 and 1963 was 30,842. Some 36,000 houses are expected to be completed in 1965 and our aim thereafter is to reach 40,000 houses a year as quickly as possible.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: Will my right hon. Friend give the House his expectations about achieving his target already announced for the current year, 1964?

Mr. Noble: It is always difficult to forecast what is going to happen in the last six months of the year, but in the first six months of this year we were fully up to our target.

Mr. Steele: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that one of the former Under-Secretaries said that after 1951 there was a progressive decrease in house building? Can he say whether from 1961 to 1963 the actual numbers fell or rose?

Mr. Noble: As I have said to the hon. Member, the average was 30,842. This involved, as all averages do, some ups and some downs.

Mr. Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear to the House that the Government have not yet been able to reach the total achieved in 1953 as a result of the planning of the last Labour Government?

Mr. Noble: I do not accept the last part of the hon. Member's statement—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is true."]—but the fact, as I have often said in the House and I think the House understands well, is that we were in a period in the early part of the 1950s in which we were building in green fields. Since then we have been building in centres of towns and that inevitably slows progress.

Remand Centre

Sir J. Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when a remand centre will be opened in Scotland.

Mr. Noble: Remand units at Longriggend and Polmont at present receive over 3,000 admissions yearly. Plans are in hand to expand Longriggend from its present accommodation of 60 to 160 places by 1968, and to make it a statutory remand centre for west Scotland courts.

Sir J. Duncan: Is this a new line for dealing with delinquency? Will it apply to males only or to both sexes?

Mr. Noble: I am not certain whether it is for both sexes, but I shall find out and let my hon. Friend know.

Mr. Woodburn: Can the Secretary of State say what progress is being made in using remand homes and borstals for educating these people during their period of incarceration to fit them for


normal life? How far is he releasing people on parole to go out to do useful work in the community instead of being kept behind locked doors?

Mr. Noble: The problem of remand homes is a separate question. If the right hon. Member puts down a Question about it I shall be delighted to answer—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"]—in November.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a very good detention centre in Perth which is doing excellent work?

Mr. Ross: Is the Secretary of State aware that we congratulate him on achieving what was enacted for in 1949, 15 years later?

Education (Local Authority Expenditure)

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the fact that the raising of the school-leaving age will involve greatly increased expenditure on education by local authorities, resulting in substantial increases in local rates, he will make a statement on the way this financial commitment is to be shared between local rates and national taxation.

Mr. Noble: The additional cost of raising the upper limit of the school age will be taken into account in the review of local government finance which is now in progress.

Mr. Hamilton: Has any estimate been made of this cost? What consultations are taking place between local education authority associations and teachers as to sharing the increased burden?

Mr. Noble: This must inevitably be an estimate, but the additional annual current expenditure in Scotland will, we think, be about £9 million. These problems will be discussed with the local authorities, because this is part of the review of the whole question of local government finance.

Mr. Hendry: Is it not the case that the declared policy of the Labour Party, to abolish fee-paying schools in Scotland, will also make a quite substantial increase in the burden on local authorities without any corresponding advantage whatever?

Mr. Manuel: In connection with the problems raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton), will the Secretary of State take cognisance of the additional cost to education authorities which are receiving overspill from Glasgow and which will add to the number of school buildings which will be necessary in the area?

Mr. Noble: That is certainly an important point and I will take note of it.

Local Authorities (Finance)

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much extra financial assistance has been given to local authorities as a direct result of the publication and implementation of the plans outlined in the White Paper on Central Scotland.

Mr. Noble: The increasing investment by local authorities resulting from the White Paper is attracting appropriate increases in grant through the normal grant arrangements. But these arrangements relate, to a considerable extent, to the activities of the authorities as a whole, and thus it is not possible to construct a figure on the basis suggested.

Mr. Hamilton: Is not the right hon. Gentleman being too coy about this? Why does he not tell us the amount of money which the central Government are giving as a direct result of this White Paper? Is he aware that many local authorities are certain that they are largely shouldering the burden and that the central Government are contributing hardly anything additional to that which was provided before the White Paper was produced?

Mr. Noble: I do not think that that is the view of most local authorities. They have had detailed discussions with the Minister of State on these problems. I do not think that that view is widely held; they know very well what the central Government are paying and what they are paying.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Is it not true that the public investment by the central Government in Scotland will increase from £100 million to £140 million in two


years, and does not this represent 11 per cent. of the total public investment for an area which contains only 7½ per cent. of the population?

Mr. Noble: These figures were brought out in the debate last week. They are important.

Mr. Ross: While it is true that these figures were brought out, it has also been brought out in Answers that the bulk of the expenditure is falling on local authorities, that no additional financial support is being given by the central Government and that the rate burden in Scotland, which is high enough, is rising. The right hon. Gentleman's own authority announced recently another increase of 1s. in the £ in the rate burden. When will he meet the needs of local authorities for finance?

Mr. Noble: It is very ingenuous of the hon. Member to suggest that the whole of this expenditure is coming out of local authorities. As he knows, there is a great expenditure on trunk roads, to which local authorities pay nothing at all, and, in addition, the Government make a very large grant towards almost every single thing which local authorities do.

Red Deer

Sir J. Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in the light of the recent annual report of the Red Deer Commission, he is satisfied that adequate progress is being made in achieving the conservation and control of red deer; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Noble: It is evident from the Commission's latest report that the deer population is still too large, and that it is not yet sufficiently appreciated by owners of sporting estates that their value depends on adequate control of numbers and improvement of stock quality. But the Commission's reports show a record of steady progress in dealing promptly with marauding deer, conducting regional surveys, persuading estates to participate in voluntary control schemes and in gaining the confidence and good will of both farmers and landowners. On all this, the Commission deserves to be warmly congratulated.

Sir J. Duncan: Are not the Government also to be congratulated on having passed the Deer Act, which makes this control of deer possible?

Mr. Willis: Is not this another case of the sporting tenant refusing to cooperate in what is obviously in the interests of Scotland?

Mr. Noble: I remember a good many remarks of that sort being made during the course of the proceedings on the Deer Bill. In fact, the Deer Commission has been most successful in getting voluntary help from sporting owners, as well as from farmers.

Mr. Rankin: Has it not been shown to be the case that the remarks made during the progress of the Deer Bill were completely true and that the landlords are not co-operating as the Minister at the time said that they would? Does not the Minister think that once again we should be looking at the question of bringing the Deer Bill up to date and putting the landlords in the Highlands in their proper place?

Mr. Noble: I think that the Deer Act gives the Deer Commission all the powers which it needs. The Commission has never asked for any extra powers. The fact that over the last few years the number of complaints about damage by deer have reduced very considerably shows that the House made a very good job of the Deer Act.

Rickets

Mr. Millan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what investigation he has made into the incidence of rickets and other diet deficiency ailments and their relevance to the reduced consumption by children of welfare foods.

Mr. Noble: The investigation in Glasgow referred to in my Answer of 15th July to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Hamilton), is one with which my medical advisers are in close touch, and it includes an examination of the diets of young children. It will, I hope, show to what extent the children concerned have received the Government's welfare foods.

Mr. Millan: Is it not rather alarming that the figures for rickets are going up when we thought at one time that


we had abolished this disease? Has the Secretary of State seen the findings of Dr. Arneil, of Glasgow University, which bring out that there is a connection between the increased incidence of rickets and the reduced consumption of welfare foods? Since the Minister of Health, in 1961, when the changes were made, said that the Government would keep a close watch on this matter and if necessary take action, what does the Secretary of State propose to do to increase the consumption of welfare foods to prevent the incidence of rickets from increasing?

Mr. Noble: The fact that rickets is increasing is deplorable at this stage of medical knowledge. I am grateful to Dr. Arneil and the local people who are helping him for carrying out this investigation, which he is doing on his own account. I am certain that when his investigations are complete we shall be able to see very much more clearly what is the exact position, but as I understand it—and this is only an early report—the problem is more one of education than of the availability of these welfare foods, because the great bulk of the people concerned are, I believe, in the category of those who get welfare foods for nothing if they want them.

Mr. W. Hamilton: Is it not the case that these are the children of parents who, by and large, are on National Assistance? If that is the case, does it not point to the inadequacy of the National Assistance rate? Is this the reason why the Prime Minister said that he would no longer use the phrase "the affluent society"?

Mr. Noble: I think that the hon. Member has it wrong, because if he believes, as I believe, that these are the children of people who are on the National Assistance rates, they get the welfare foods for nothing. This seems to me a separate point.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to eliminate clinical and latent rickets among Scottish children.

Mr. Noble: The elimination of rickets is achieved by proper feeding. The investigation in Glasgow referred to in my Answers of 15th July to the hon.

Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) and of today to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) will, I hope, help to identify more closely points to which attention should be directed.

Dr. Mabon: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the pledges given by his predecessor and by a previous Minister of Health that if there were an emergence of either clinical or latent rickets—and the British Medical Association has since investigated the matter—the Government would review the question of vitamin prices? Will the Government, therefore, now look at the subsidies for vitamin foods and all welfare foods?

Mr. Noble: The hon. Gentleman was, I am sure, unavoidably, unable to be present when we were answering questions on this point earlier but, as I said then, the evidence which Dr. Arneil and his group are collecting will be considered by my Standing Medical Council as soon as we get it. At the moment, it does not look as though foods are the problem, but until Dr. Arneil has been able to analyse all his results I do not think that we can go much further.

Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the number of persons on the waiting list for general surgical operations at Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy, and the length of time the most outstanding case or cases have been waiting.

Mr. Noble: Five hundred and twenty, Sir. The waiting list for males extends back to May, 1963, and for females to March, 1961. All patients requiring urgent treatment are, of course, given priority.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the Minister aware of the human suffering which lies behind those figures? Is he further aware that about 15 urgent surgical cases are admitted to Victoria Hospital every month, thus lengthening the waiting time of persons on the waiting lists for operations? Is he further aware that when the second extension to Victoria Hospital is completed it will by no stretch of the imagination meet the needs of the area? Will he, therefore, reconsider the possibility


of a third extension to the hospital and, in the meantime, ensure that the orthopædic hospital in Kirkcaldy is kept in use for post-operative patients?

Mr. Noble: I agree with the hon. Member that there is inevitably some human suffering or discomfort in this matter. Urgent cases are dealt with, as I said. The best thing that we can do is to get ahead as quickly as we can with the extension of Victoria Hospital. I think that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State gave him an answer about the orthopædic hospital last week. The hon. Member asks about a third extension. I think that the regional hospital board will take note of what he said and perhaps will discuss it with my Department.

General Practitioners (Group Practices)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many, and what proportion of, general practitioners function in group practices: and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Noble: Of the 2,686 principals in practice in Scotland at the end of last year 1,950 were in partnership. Figures are not available for group practice since the term is not precisely defined.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is a very urgent need in Scotland to afford to general practitioners the opportunity of performing services in group practice which involve clinical and hospital services? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is the definition of group practice? Does he not also agree that those who have embraced a noble profession have their experience strictly limited so long as they do not have such an opportunity? What proposals do the Government have to encourage general practitioners to gain more clinical and hospital experience?

Mr. Noble: Since 1954 we have been making interest-free loans to groups of doctors to provide new and improved premises, and 358 doctors have taken advantage of these. My right hon. Friend, the Minister of Health, and I are discussing with the profession whether it is possible to secure a more direct way of reimbursing certain practice expenses in order, among other things, to encourage doctors to improve their premises.

Sanitary Inspectors

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what reply he has sent to the resolution which he received from the Sanitary Inspectors' Association of Scotland, dated 3rd July, 1964, regarding the shortage of sanitary inspectors in Scotland.

Mr. Noble: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave on 13th July to the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey).

Mr. Manuel: Is the Secretary of State aware that the present shortage of sanitary inspectors in Scotland constitutes a threat to the country's health? Is he not prepared to initiate steps so that sanitary inspectors will be more easily recruited to local authority services because of better conditions and higher salary scales?

Mr. Noble: I am aware of the fact, which was brought out for the first time in a letter I received only a few weeks ago, that there is a considerable drift of sanitary inspectors to the south of England. The hon. Gentleman probably knows that from 1957 to 1959 Scottish local authorities could obtain, through the National Joint Industrial Councils for Local Authority Services (Scotland), authority to pay up to £60, and later £40, above the scales. I have no doubt that, if local authorities think that something of this sort is needed again, they will apply to the National Joint Industrial Council for help in this way, because this rests with them.

Housing

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many single-apartment houses are occupied by families; and how many two apartment houses, without modern amenities, are occupied by families.

Mr. Noble: The numbers of one- and two-apartment houses occupied at the time of the 1961 Census were 48,333 and 304,174 respectively. It is estimated that about half of all the households concerned consisted of only one or two persons. About 231,500 two-apartment houses lacked a fixed bath, 182,000 were without a hot water tap, 8,900 without a water closet and 4,800 without a cold water tap.

Mr. Dempsey: Does not this make a complete mockery of all the Conservative Party's pledges and promises at General Elections? After 13 years of Conservative rule, people in Scotland are living in these shocking conditions. Is it not a disgrace to the nation, to the Secretary of State and to the party that he represents? Is it not about time that he was getting cracking with building houses to provide decent homes and amenities for these people?

Mr. Noble: The fact that the number of houses under construction is an all-time record shows that something has been done. Even allowing for the fact that about 25,000 one- and two-apartment houses were provided by public authorities between 1951 and 1961, the total number of houses of this size fell by 95,000 in that period. This indicates that about 120,000 of that type of house have been demolished or got rid of in one way or another in the 10 years.

Mr. Ross: Is the Secretary of State aware that the shockng figures he gave amply prove that we have had 13 years of neglect of the real needs of Scotland?

Mr. Noble: In view of the housing figures achieved by the hon. Gentleman and his party, I do not think that is a fair criticism.

School Accommodation, Clydebank

Mr. Bence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received respecting school accommodation in Clydebank; and what steps he proposes taking to provide adequate accommodation.

Mr. Noble: The only recent representations have been concerned with a proposal for additional temporary classrooms at Kilbowie Primary School. As my noble Friend explained in her letter of 16th July to the hon. Member, I withheld approval because there are suitable spare school places elsewhere in the vicinity.

Mr. Bence: My question was not tabled with reference to that, because I have dealt with that with the Under-Secretary. Is the Secretary of State aware that the County Council of Dunbarton has been negotiating for months with the Ministry of Transport, without any success whatever, to acquire East Clydebank

railway station, which is now closed? Will the right hon. Gentleman intercede with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and get cracking on getting this matter settled so that the County Council of Dunbarton can build school accommodation in Clydebank, thus helping to solve the problems of school accommodation in the county?

Mr. Noble: I apologise if I misunderstood the purport of the hon. Gentleman's Question, but I am bound to admit that his supplementary question would have been difficult to anticipate. I will certainly speak to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

Cumbernauld Village (Bus Stops)

Mr. Bence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received respecting the provision of bus stops in the village of Cumbernauld; and what steps he proposes taking towards making such provision.

Mr. Noble: I have received representations from the hon. Member, which I have brought to the notice of the county council because this is primarily a matter for it to consider in consultation with the Traffic Commissioners.

Mr. Bence: Is the Secretary of State aware that I raised this problem which exists in the designated area with the county council, which said that it was the responsibility of the Secretary of State? I have raised it with the Secretary of State, who says that it is for the representatives of the county council. Where are we? I do not know whose responsibility it is. All I know is that it is not mine. Will the Secretary of State get cracking and ensure that this injustice and the inconvenience which these villagers are suffering is put right before he goes out of office?

Mr. Noble: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman does not know whose responsibility it is. I have written to him once or twice on the subject. The answer is that it is the responsibility of the county council as planning authority.

Govan High School

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he approved the sketch plans for the rebuilding of Govan


High School which was badly damaged by fire two years ago; and if he will inquire into the reasons which are delaying the production of detailed plans for the new school.

Mr. Noble: I approved sketch plans in July, 1963. I understand that subsequent planning work has proceeded in accordance with Glasgow education authority's schedule and that the new school will be ready to start in May next year, the date indicated in the authority's programme.

Mr. Rankin: Does the Secretary of State realise that he has told only half the story? Is he aware that the pupils of Govan High School have for the last two years been attending another school which was regarded as obsolete for educational purposes many years ago and whose pupils are now housed in a beautiful new school? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the real stumbling block to the progress of building the new buildings for Govan High School has been the Secretary of State for Scotland, with whom he should be familiar, because the Secretary of State has cut the grant for school building purposes in Glasgow from £5 million to £2½ million? Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee today that the new Govan High School will be occupied by pupils next May, as he has just said?

Mr. Noble: Even in response to the hon. Gentleman I cannot guarantee to give the whole story in answer to every Question. The hon. Gentleman is inaccurate in thinking that the hold-up on Govan High School has anything to do with cuts in the educational programme, because the local authority has never at any time suggested to me that this school could be ready for starting before early 1965. In addition, the hon. Gentleman may remember that it was only in the last two months of the financial year 1963–64 that Glasgow was ready to start the projects comprising the major part of its capital allocation for that year.

Typhoid Outbreak, Aberdeen

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make a statement on the typhoid epidemic, including the number of actual and suspected cases to the latest convenient date, the number of Aberdeen doctors and nurses engaged in the work,

and the number of outside doctors and nurses whose help has been offered and accepted.

Mr. Noble: As the hon. and learned Member will know, the Aberdeen typhoid epidemic has been successfully contained. At its peak on 16th June there were 450 patients in hospital in the Aberdeen area; 398 confirmed and 52 suspected cases. By 28th July the number of confirmed cases had fallen to 119 and there were no new suspected cases.
The handling of the epidemic has been a combined operation by the staff of the Aberdeen City Public Health Department, the hospital service and the general practitioners in the area. The public health departments of Aberdeen and Kincardine Counties were also much involved.
The total staff deployed by the Medical Officer of Health and the Chief Sanitary Inspector for the City of Aberdeen numbered over 80. A senior medical officer from the Scottish Home and Health Department was also seconded temporarily to the medical officer of health's staff. At the height of the epidemic 35 doctors and 329 nurses—including six doctors and seven nurses from other areas and a number of retired nurses recruited for the purpose—were engaged in providing hospital and laboratory services. A considerable number of general practitioners in Aberdeen and district also carried a heavy burden.

Mr. Hughes: I thank the Secretary of State for that detailed reply. Would he agree that now that Aberdeen is entirely free of that epidemic it is one of the healthiest cities in Britain, is full of tourists—including the Queen, who has been there twice in the last month—and is very attractive for visitors in every way?

Mr. Noble: I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman and all hon. Members are delighted at the speed with which this epidemic was contained. I am delighted to hear from him that Aberdeen is rapidly getting back to normal and is full of tourists once again.

Mr. Ross: While I join with the right hon. Gentleman in congratulating the Aberdeen authorities not only on the speed with which the epidemic was contained but also on the efficiency with which they dealt with it, may I ask


him if he will say to what extent he is prepared to help Aberdeen in respect of any additional expenditure which must have been incurred in containing the epidemic?

Mr. Noble: If the local authority puts up a case to my Department I will certainly consider it.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Committee of inquiry into the Aberdeen typhoid outbreak had its first sittings; how many sittings it has had; what witnesses have been examined; and when it is now expected to report.

Mr. Noble: The Committee held its first meeting on 18th June and has met eight times in Edinburgh, London and Aberdeen; the ninth meeting is being held in Aberdeen today. Some 40 witnesses have been examined and these include, bacteriologists, microbiologists and medical officers of health who have in recent years had outbreaks of typhoid fever in their areas; evidence has also been taken from Government Departments and from the firm in whose shop the infection is thought to have occurred. A considerable number of important witnesses have still to be examined and it is not possible at present to forecast when the report will be available.

Mr. Hughes: Are the terms of reference of the Committee of inquiry sufficiently wide to enable it to take into account similar epidemics, in Croydon and other places in the south of England, for comparative purposes, with a view to seeing that Britain is kept free of invasions of this sort from abroad in future?

Mr. Noble: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Grimond: Has the Secretary of State noticed that certain varieties of pressed beef have disappeared from the Tea Room of the House of Commons? I have been told that this has been due to suspicions of typhoid. Has there been any general ban placed on any types of meat? Has there been a general withdrawal?

Mr. Noble: No. There has been no withdrawal, outside the specific cans from the specific establishments of which the House was informed.

Farm Rents

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legislation to help Scottish farmers, especially those in the Border counties, whose rents have recently been increased.

Mr. Noble: No, Sir. Farm rents are fixed by agreement between the parties or, failing such agreement, by arbitration, and I see no reason to alter the existing statutory provisions.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the Secretary of State realise that one of the outstanding achievements of this Government, not mentioned in the Prime Minister's speeches, is the greatly increased rents being paid by farmers? Would it not be a splendid example for the owner of 60,000 acres to go to the country before the election and to show his genuine interest in agriculture and farmers and reduce his rents?

Mr. Noble: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be against gimmicks of that sort before the election.

Sir J. Duncan: Has my right hon. Friend any figures to show the average increase in rents in Scotland in the last few years, bearing in mind that the costs of buildings and repairs and so on have gone up by 400 per cent.? Is it not in the reasonable interests of tenants themselves that landlords should be able to charge rents which at least cover the enormously increased cost of repairs which are done by landlords?

Mr. Noble: I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend the exact figures for recent years, but there is no doubt that I get just as many complaints in my Department about rents being too high as I do about rents being too low, so probably we have it about right. At present rents account for about 6 per cent. of the total structure of farm expenses, which is not a high figure.

Mr. Ross: Regarding the existing statutory provisions which enable increases to be made, can the Secretary of State say which Government introduced them, and when?

Mr. Noble: I do not think that it matters very much which Government introduced them, although I have often given the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends credit for the 1947 Act.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Secretary of State's reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter immediately during the election campaign.

Hospital Patients, Highlands and Islands (Travelling Expenses)

Sir John MacLeod: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the difficulties experienced by patients in many parts of the Highlands and Islands because of the heavy expenses they incur travelling to hospital; what action he now proposes to take; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Noble: Yes, Sir. Following recommendations on this subject by the Advisory Committee on Health Services in the Highlands and Islands and by the Scottish Health Services Council, I have decided to introduce a scheme under which travelling expenses necessarily incurred by hospital patients living in the seven crofting counties in excess of the first £1 for each visit, will be refunded by the hospital service, in cases where the patient has had to travel more than 30 miles to hospital or his journey has included five miles or more by sea. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health will be making similar arrangements for patients from the Isles of Scilly.

Sir John MacLeod: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this statement will be received with great relief that at long last my right hon. Friend has decided to take this step? Since he will be alleviating many hardships, may I take this opportunity to thank him on behalf of the people who will welcome his reply?

Mr. Noble: All hon. Members who represent Highland constituencies know what a big problem this is and I am pleased to have been of help in solving it.

Mr. Grimond: Although a long-ovedue amelioration, this will be none the less welcome. Can the Secretary of State say, first, whether a patient must spend a night or a considerable period away from home before being able to claim anything and, secondly, will this apply to all cases, walking as well as

ambulance cases? Will it apply to dental and all cases coming within the Health Service or will it be in any way limited?

Mr. Noble: To answer the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question first, it will not be limited but will apply to all cases in the Health Service. In addition, in cases where a patient has, for good reason, to be attended by somebody, that persons' expenses will be paid, too. I am afraid that we cannot include any subsistence allowance in this because this is not possible under the Health Service Act concerned.

Mr. Grimond: I was thinking not so much of those travelling to hospital but of patients travelling to, say, the dentist. Will it apply to them?

Mr. Noble: I do not think that travelling to an ordinary dentist would bring a person into the scheme.

Teacher Training College (Stirling)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he is giving to establishing a teacher training college at Stirling.

Mr. Noble: None, Sir.

Mr. Dalyell: In the light of what the Robbins Committee had to say, why not?

Mr. Noble: For the perfectly simple reason that I am advised on these matters by the Scottish Council for the Training of Teachers, which asked my Department—and I agreed—to establish a college at Falkirk.

Miss Herbison: Before the Secretary of State decides on the location of a college of education, what discussion has he with representatives of the leaching profession in Scotland? Can he tell us—this being the last chance he will have of doing so in this Parliament—what decision, if any, he has made on the recommendation of the Wheatley Committee on the setting up of a general teaching council, since a letter which I received from the Under-Secretary yesterday seems to cast doubt on the integrity and responsibility of the teachers of Scotland and seems to suggest that the Secretary of State has no intention of setting up a general teaching council?

Mr. Noble: I admire the hon. Lady's ingenuity, but the Wheatley Committee is a quite different question which I could not answer in relation to this one. To answer the first part of her supplementary question, I am certain that the Scottish Council for the Training of Teachers has very close relations with the teaching organisations in giving its advice to me.

Miss Herbison: Does that reply mean that the Secretary of State is determined not to give any answer at all to the teachers of Scotland before the General Election?

Mr. Noble: That is still a different question.

Mr. Dalyell: What representations did the Secretary of State make to the U.G.C. about the location of the teacher training college at Falkirk? Was this discussed before the Stirling decision was made?

Mr. Noble: That, again, is an entirely different question—

Mr. Dalyell: No, it is not.

Mr. Noble: —and all I say is that this decision to have the college at Falkirk was made a year before the U.G.C. was considering the university.

Forestry

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many acres he expects will be planted in Scotland and the Highlands, respectively, during the current forestry year.

Mr. Noble: The total planting in Scotland by the Forestry Commission this year is expected to be about 30,800 acres, of which 12,700 acres are in the Highlands. Private woodland owners have planted about 13,000 acres during the year in Scotland.

Mr. Willis: Do not these figures indicate a big fall in forestry in Scotland, and is this reduction not likely to continue? Why does the right hon. Gentleman not tell the people in Scotland what the reduction in the forestry programmes is to be? This matter is causing a very great deal of concern.

Mr. Noble: A very considerable amount of forestry planting is going on. As I pointed out to the Scottish Grand Committee last week, the problem of

forestry planting is very much a central one in the context of the development of the areas outside the centre of Scotland, but I think that we should look at the detailed figures when we have the report on this development.

Mr. Ross: Is the Secretary of State aware that we have fallen far behind the programme announced in another place by the first Minister of State for Scotland, who is now the Prime Minister? When is that pledge to be kept?

Mr. Noble: Conditions have also changed a good deal since that date.

River Esk, Musselburgh (Bridge)

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further steps he has taken to secure for general traffic needs the use of the South East Scotland Electricity Board's bridge over the River Esk at Musselburgh.

Mr. Noble: I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave the hon. Member on 29th April.

Mr. Willis: Is not that a shocking reply? Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider it completely fantastic that there should be a newly built bridge, specially designed for heavy loads, standing locked, whilst the streets of Musselburgh are absolutely packed with traffic on Saturdays and Sundays, and almost every other day of the week, and people cannot get about their ordinary business? Why does not the Secretary of State take steps to initiate some discussions to get this bridge opened for public use?

Mr. Noble: As I told the hon. Gentleman when he asked a similar Question some months ago, it is not for me to initiate these discussions; it is for the burgh and the county council.

Sir J. Duncan: Can my right hon. Friend tell me when he has seen the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) not shocked?

Local Authorities (Grants)

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland which local authorities in the financial year 1962–63


were in receipt of Exchequer equalisation, and or general grants which represented 33·3 per cent. or less of their relevant local expenditure; and what was the highest percentage a local authority received in grant in relation to its local relevant expenditure.

Mr. Noble: In 1962–63, the Burghs of Millport and Rothesay received less than 33·3 per cent. of their relevant local expenditure by way of Exchequer equalisation grant and general grant. The highest proportion was 91·2 per cent. in Zetland.

Mr. Gourlay: Does the Secretary of State recall that on 8th July he told me that £477,000 of Exchequer grant had been returned from Scottish local authorities? Is he really proud to be the first Secretary of State to filch nearly £½ million of grant from Scottish authorities and return it to the Treasury? Is he further aware that the anomalies created by the revaluation in 1961 affected Kirkcaldy and Dumbarton, as well as Millport and the other town he mentioned, quite considerably? Will he take steps to ensure that the assessors in Scotland have consultations before the next revaluation in order to agree on a uniform base line on which to operate the new valuation, and thus remove the unjust anomalies of the last base line?

Mr. Noble: I know that the hon. Gentleman appreciates the fact that it is not the duty of the Secretary of State to interfere directly with the revaluations, and I know his particular feeling about the problem of Kirkcaldy. As for the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, the money was not stolen back by me; the local authorities concerned decided not to put up their rents in accordance with the wishes of the House of Commons, and therefore lost the money.

Mr. Gourlay: But is it not the fact that £½ million has been sent back to the Treasury which was already attracted to Scotland? The right hon. Gentleman is prepared to send it back.

Mr. Noble: The local authorities apparently did not want to keep it.

Voters Roll (Removal of Names)

Mr. Millan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why he will not intro

duce legislation to give himself power to investigate the removal of elector's names from the voters roll by electoral registration officers.

Mr. Noble: I do not consider that a Minister should have such a power.

Mr. Millan: Has the attention of the Secretary of State been drawn to the recent case in Kinross and West Perth where the secretary of the local Unionist Association submitted to the electoral registration officer a large list of names of people whom he claimed were dead, including two well-known Scottish Nationalists who were very much alive, with the result that their names were removed from the electoral register after the register had been publishd? Is it not deplorable that this kind of thing could happen, and is it not a matter that the Secretary of State ought to investigate?

Mr. Noble: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have seen the papers in this case, but a power to investigate surely implies a power to interfere with the duties of electoral registration officers. Such interference has always been excluded by the Representation of the People Act, and I do not think that Parliament would accept it now.

Mr. Millan: These people had their names removed for no reason at all except the intervention of the Unionist Party. Does not the Secretary of State feel that he ought to investigate the matter, as there must otherwise remain a suspicion that the electoral roll can be open to undue influence by political parties?

Mr. Noble: I do not think that there is the slightest evidence of any undue interference. I do not know what the other two persons' political beliefs may have been—perhaps they were paired off—but I think it right that the preparation of these rolls should be in the hands of the electoral registration officer, and it is his job to check the information he gets.

Welfare Foods

Dr. A. Thompson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the uptake of the three vitamin welfare foods, orange juice, cod liver oil and vitamins A and D tablets, whether free or sold at cost price, has fallen by over two-thirds in the last eight


years; what estimate he has made of the number of poorer families who would benefit from increased consumption of these welfare foods; and what steps he is taking to increase their consumption.

Mr. Noble: I am aware that the uptake of welfare foods is now about one-third of what it was in 1956, but it has recently been rising. To estimate the number of families who would benefit from increased consumption of welfare foods, would require a large-scale special survey. As regards the third part of the Question, advice on the value of welfare foods is regularly given by doctors, health visitors and local authority clinics, information about their availability is displayed by local authorities at suitable locations, and the National Assistance Board distributes special leaflets about the arrangements under which they may be supplied free.

Dr. Thompson: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the fall in the consumption of these units came after June, 1961, with the imposition of extra charges and that in the British Medical Journal of Saturday, 25th July, in examining this problem a Glasgow doctor said that the increase in rickets was not due, as has been alleged, to coloured immigration or to unsatisfactory families but was primarily due to the reduction in the consumption of vitamin foods? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this was the direct consequence not of medical activity but of a political decision by the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman is a member and for which therefore he has responsibility? Will he look again at this question of free distribution of vitamin foods for children?

Mr. Noble: As I have already said, when Dr. Arneil's analysis is completed we will certainly look into it and see what special steps are needed.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Does the analysis include cases, which are alleged, of blatant deficiencies? This is an important matter, as the right hon. Gentleman must recognise, particularly relevant to an earlier Answer which he gave to one of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Noble: I cannot answer for Dr. Arnteil on that, but I know that he is

very much aware of the problem and I expect that he will give useful information about it.

MALTA (CONSTITUTION)

Mrs. Castle: Mrs. Castle (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the changes he now proposes to negotiate in the Malta Constitution.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies (Mr. Duncan Sandys): In the course of the debate yesterday in another place the view was expressed that the new Clause 46 which provides comprehensive safeguards against discrimination of all kinds would, in certain respects, particularly with regard to marriage laws, afford less protection than subsection 3 of Clause 41 of the earlier draft proposed by the Government of Malta.
It was obviously not our intention that any amendments which we made to the Malta Government's draft should result in diminishing in any way the safeguards provided. I have spoken on the telephone to the Prime Minister of Malta, who has agreed that the matter should be looked into at once.

Mrs. Castle: Is it not a fact that the point raised in another place yesterday about the effect of Clauses 41 and 46 on the rights of religious minorities with regard to marriage and other matters was specifically raised in this House on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) and other hon. Members and that the right hon. Gentleman at that time pooh-poohed the idea that there was anything to worry about and suggested that we were making a mountain out of a molehill?
Is it not clear that the right hon. Gentleman has been so busy trying to railroad his independence Bill through this House that he has not taken time to understand his own Constitution? Has he not grossly misled the House? Will he now apologise to the House, or will he take steps to see that the Royal Assent is not given to the Bill until the actual changes have been made in the Constitution to meet the legitimate fears of the Churches in this country?

Mr. Sandys: I have nothing to apologise about.

Mrs. Castle: The right hon. Gentleman misled the House.

Mr. Sandys: It is not an unusual thing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—even for the Opposition sometimes to make a constructive contribution to legislation.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: That is not what the right hon. Gentleman was going to say.

Mr. Sandys: What has happened is that during the course of Parliamentary discussion a weakness, or alleged weakness, has been revealed and the Government have undertaken at once to look into it. All this shows, first, the value of another place, and, secondly, how well the Executive works with the Legislature.

Mr. Brockway: How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to deal with this matter? Will it be necessary for an Order in Council to be produced? Will it be necessary to have an amendment of the Order in Council which is already proposed? If so, will this House have an opportunity of expressing a judgment upon it?

Mr. Sandys: No, there is no technical problem of any kind. As I explained to the House, it was very important to get the Bill through before the House rose. Otherwise, there would be many months of delay in the granting of independence to Malta.
The Constitution is introduced by an Order in Council which has not yet been made, and there is no immediate hurry for making it. The House will not have a further chance of discussing this matter unless it wishes to sit on into August.

Mr. Bottomley: Is it not a fact that the Secretary of State is now giving support to the contention from both sides of the House that the Bill and the writing of the Constitution have been rushed unnecessarily? We have not had time to consider the matter as fully as we should have done. Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman misled the House when, in the debate on 23rd July, he said:

We are making certain changes in a liberal direction …"?—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1964; Vol. 699, c. 782.]
This was not done, and we not only once but twice asked for a reassurance on this matter from the Secretary of State.
Will the right hon. Gentleman now give an assurance to the House that Clause 41 (3) of the earlier draft Constitution is restored to its full effect when the Order in Council is made?

Mr. Sandys: That is precisely what I am discussing with the Prime Minister of Malta.

Mr. B. Harrison: Will my right hon. Friend be able to give an assurance to the House that his efforts to give self-government to another part of the Commonwealth will not be unduly delayed by this?

Mr. Sandys: This should involve no delay at all.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Dr. Dickson Mabon: On a point of order. Questions 82, 74, 77, 85 and 87 on the Order Paper are all addressed to the Minister of Transport. This being the last occasion on which we can question the Minister in this Parliament, may I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether you have received a request that the Minister be allowed to make a statement in reply to these Questions, as he promised to make before Parliament rose?

Mr. Speaker: No, I have received no such request.

COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE SYSTEM (AGREEMENT)

Mr. Warbey: On a point of order. I desire to ask for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order arising out of a reply given by the Postmaster-General to me yesterday concerning agreements which have been signed and approved by the Government for the establishment of a worldwide telecommunications network through satellites. The point which I wish to raise is the extent to which the agreements is the


the type of treaty, agreement or contract with other Governments or external commercial interests which is of no effect unless it is ratified by this House?
There is a general provision in our Constitution, according ot the authorities—Halsbury and Anson—and I quote from Anson's "Law and Custom of the Constitution", which says, in Part II, on page 137 of the 1935 edition:
It would seem to follow from the general principles of our Constitution that a treaty which lays a pecuniary burden on the people or which alters the law of the land needs Parliamentary sanction.
I submit, firstly, that the agreements will impose a pecuniary burden upon the people if it is signed by the Government, as is their declared intention, because we are required, under the terms of the agreements, to transmit sums of money from this country to a corporation or a committee which will be the owners and controllers of this system of global satellites. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the point of order?"] Moreover, the rights of private citizens and the laws of the country may be affected in that under the agreements the British Broadcasting Corporation and possibly the Independent Television Authority may be required in future when the agreements come into force—

Mr. Speaker: I think that I could follow the hon. Gentlemans' argument with less inconvenience if he could indicate to me what the point of order is.

Mr. Warbey: I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, whether you will give a Ruling that the Government are in this matter bound to observe the rules of our Constitution and also the Standing Orders of the House. I shall be coming in a moment to the question of the Standing Orders. I am dealing now with the general rule of our Constitution.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member can develop his point on the Standing Orders if he likes, but I do not at all fancy giving rulings about the bearing of the Constitution on the point.

Mr. Warbey: With respect, it is an established principle of our Constitution that a treaty of the type that I have described, and as described in Anson, Halsbury and other authorities, is one which requires Parliamentary ratification

before it becomes effective. That is my first submission. I was merely seeking to show, by reference to the terms of the agreements and with such minimal reference as was necessary for my purpose, that the agreements will lay a pecuniary burden on people in the country and also that they will affect the laws of this country and the operations of private citizens.
The B.B.C. and the I.T.A., under the provisions of these agreements, will be required to enter into agreements with this committee dominated by external interests for the provision of worldwide television relays.
I now come to the—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I know that hon. Members opposite, as supporters of commercial television interests, are not interested in—

Mr. Speaker: It is essential, in the general interest, that we should confine raising points of order to raising points of order.

Mr. Warbey: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Robert Cooke: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: I can only receive one point of order, at a time. It lengthens even one if there are two simultaneously.

Mr. Warbey: I was raising a point of order, and it is in accordance with the rules of this House that points of order should be heard in silence so that Mr. Speaker may hear the point. If you can hear the point that I am making, Mr. Speaker, I am perfectly satisfied, but I do not see any reason why I should be compelled to raise my voice so that you should do so.
I now come to the question of the application of Standing Order No. 92. which specifically provides:
In all contracts extending over a period of years, and creating a public charge, actual or prospective, entered into by the government for the conveyance of mails by sea, or for the purpose of telegraphic communications beyond sea, there shall be inserted the condition that the contract shall not be binding until it has been approved of by a resolution of the House.

Sir T. Moore: May I intervene?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It will be very pleasant if and when we all have a little rest. But for the moment I should be greatly obliged if the House would allow me to hear and rule upon this point of order.

Mr. Warbey: Mr. Speaker, the agreements in question include certain contractual aspects affecting telecommunications and involving the Postmaster-General who has already initialled the agreements in his capacity as Her Britannic Majesty's Postmaster-General and, therefore, as a Minister of the Crown and a member of the Government. He has announced his intention of approving the agreements. The agreements will be open for signature on 19th August and will come into force when two Governments have signed them.
I should like to have from you, Sir, a Ruling that the Standing Order at least, if not the general provisions of our Constitution, is binding upon the Government and upon the Postmaster-General in this respect and that it is, therefore, their duty to ensure that the agreements are submitted to this House for approval.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you bear in mind, in giving your Ruling, that the hon. Member's Question of yesterday mentioned the United Kingdom specifically not at all? The only country which was mentioned specifically was the People's Republic of China.

Mr. Speaker: I propose to rule on the only matter which arises for me, which is a matter of order. The fact is that no point of order arises, because the agreements have not, in fact, been signed and do not come into effect until they have been. That is common ground. With regard to the rest of it, of course, the words of Standing Order 92 relate to agreements creating a public charge, and "public charge", by long-standing interpretation of our Standing Order, does not include those instances where moneys are derived from a fund like the Post Office Fund which, for all I know, may well be this case.

Mr. Mason: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. First, we are not certain that the £6 million, and possibly £9 million, which are to be spent under the agreements over the next five years

are coming from the Post Office Fund. In view of the fact that it involves research and development, the money may well come from the Ministry of Aviation, and, consequently, will be public moneys as stated in Standing Order 92. According to Standing Order 92, the agreements cannot be endorsed by the House unless there has been a Resolution of the House, and, although it may be hypothetical at this stage, the agreements are to be signed on 19th August or shortly thereafter. The House will be in recess.
Therefore, if public moneys from the Ministry of Aviation are to be involved and, therefore, come under Standing Order 92, could you consider giving a Ruling tomorrow on whether there will be a contravention of the Standing Order if the signature is appended by the Government during the Recess?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been here a long time and he is very wise. He will realise that, from the point of view of the Standing Order, the situation is hypothetical until the agreements are signed. It does not come under it at all.

Mr. Rankin: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), Mr. Speaker. In view of the interest not only in the House, but among interested persons outside, and because of the biased attitude of the Padmore Report towards reactor designs which do not originate with the Authority, could we hope that, before the House rises—perhaps tomorrow, or on Friday—we may have a statement from the Government about their intentions?

Mr. Speaker: It is not a matter of order for me to express hopes or absence of hopes. It is not a point of order at all.

Mr. Warbey: Further to my original point of order, Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was not a point of order."] Mr. Speaker will decide.
The question whether or not the point is purely hypothetical seems to be material here. I submit to you, Sir, that it is not hypothetical in the ordinary sense of the term since the Government, in their reply to me yesterday, said that


the United Kingdom Government have now approved the agreements. Surely, that is an indication of intention to sign. The Government having indicated that they intend to sign, must not we act on the presumption that they intend to carry out that intention?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot add to what I have said. It is plain enough. It does not come under the Standing Order for me unless it is signed. I cannot rule about it.

Mr. Mason: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was not a point of order."] You keep saying that it is not a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, until they are signed; but you will not be here and neither will Parliament if the Government decide to sign on 19th August. What redress will the House have, and, if the agreements are signed, will there not then be a contravention of Standing Order No. 92?

Mr. Speaker: No. The hon. Gentleman's quarrel or potential quarrel is with a Minister, not with me. The agreements may be signed when we are not here, but this still does not enable me to rule upon it now. That is the difference. I cannot help it.

SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL

The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): I have to report that the Committee appointed by this House waited upon the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), according to the Order of the House, yesterday afternoon, and conveyed to him the Resolution expressing the thanks of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman said:
I am deeply grateful to the House that it should see fit to honour its servant in this outstanding way. Among the many different aspects and chapters of my public life, it is my tenure as a Member of Parliament that I value most highly. Now, at the time of my departure, this Resolution has set the seal on the many kindnesses which the House has done me. It will always be remembered and cherished by myself and my descendants

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): With permission, I should like to make a short business statement.
In discussions through the usual channels, on today's business, the Opposition have indicated that they do not now propose to discuss the method of selection for secondary education. Thus, after the Motion for the Summer Adjournment has been dealt with, the whole of the day will be available for private Members.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the Leader of the House aware that, although we should very much like to have had a brief half-day debate on this subject, once it became clear that there was the rearrangement of Parliamentary business for tomorrow for which we had asked, there would inevitably be a debate on the Motion for the Summer Adjournment and there might be a danger, if we took the half day on this other question, of severely curtailing the time which, I think, everyone is anxious that hon. Members should have to raise individual issues.
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, since, in past years, we have always, out of what is regarded as our time, arranged for half a day on this particular occasion to be available for any issue to be raised on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, we did not want to cut that half day down, and it was for this reason that we took the action we did, not through any lack of interest in the other subject? However, since we were informed, as a result of painstaking research, that hon. Members on both sides have, between them, already given some kind of formal notice of wishing to raise no fewer than 15 separate subjects, we felt that we ought not to stand in their way by attempting to preempt the time of the House for the particular debate which we had in mind.

Mr. Lloyd: We all understand what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and I can confirm his information that there has been unofficial notice of 15 matters to be raised.

Dame Irene Ward: Since my right hon. and learned Friend has made a statement about business, and we were given an undertaking that a statement


would be made about the possibility of a nuclear-powered ship, will he inform the House—I understand that this is so—that a statement will be made about it tomorrow, having regard to the interest felt by so many hon. Members on this subject?
Further, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that I think it a little odd that he did not, in his usual courteous way, think of informing the House that a statement would not be made today, but would be made tomorrow?

Mr. Lloyd: I am aware of my hon. Friend's interest in this matter. As I understand, the House will be informed. It is a matter to be dealt with tomorrow.

Mr. Lubbock: The alteration of business has been agreed at very short notice. Will the Leader of the House say what opportunities those of us who would have wished to speak in the debate on secondary education will now have of doing so?

Mr. Lloyd: Hon. Members must exercise their ingenuity.

Mr. Driberg: Will the Leader of the House make sure that there are at least 15 appropriate and assorted Ministers here all the time to answer the points which may be raised on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, one of the difficulties being that different points are raised at different times? Will there be an omnibus reply at the end, or will various Ministers answer for their responsibilities?

Mr. Lloyd: Where notice has been given that any matter is to be raised, the appropriate Minister will be here to answer.

Mr. Robert Cooke: No doubt, the House will welcome the facilitating of today's business, but will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that the removal from today's business of the subject of selection for secondary education will be a grave disappointment to all those many thousands of people in Bristol who had hoped to have their views put on the grave threat made by the Labour Party to all the grammar schools in that city?

Commander Courtney: May I support my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) on the question of the nuclear-powered ship? I think it less than courteous, when the House and many people in the country are anxiously awaiting a decision, for my right hon. and learned Friend really not to know whether a statement is to be made today or tomorrow.

Mr. Lloyd: I cannot accept these accusations of lack of courtesy. I said that, as I understood the House would be informed of the decision tomorrow.

Mr. G. Thomas: As I propose to make a speech on leasehold, if I catch your eye later, Mr. Speaker, will the Leader of the House inform the Minister of Housing and Local Government that I would like an answer?

Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Gentleman gives notice, he will get an appropriate reply, but not, of course, the answer which I have often given him in Welsh.

Mr. H. Wilson: The Leader of the House may recall that, on a previous occasion when the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill was before the House, the House was most brusquely closured at a very early hour—six o'clock in the morning, I think. [HON. MEMBERS: "Will the right hon. Gentleman be here?"] I cannot guarantee it.
Recognising the great desire which he and I and all hon. Members have, whether we are here or not, that there should be proper time for individual Members to deal with the matters which they wish to raise, will the Leader of the House give an assurance that, if there are important subjects left for debate, it is not intended too early or too brusquely to move the Closure on the Bill, provided, of course, that the debate does not run on so long as to stop tomorrow's business?

Mr. Speaker: I find myself almost emotionally involved, but I am afraid that the question is, on previous Rulings, out of order. Perhaps we had better facilitate business.

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising on Friday, do adjourn till Monday, 19th October.—[Mr. Selwyn Lloyd.]

4.0 p.m.

Mr. William Warbey: The majority of the hon. Members are obviously only too anxious to adjourn as quickly as possible, and I am not anxious to have to come back, but the wording of this Motion is of a very peculiar character in the circumstances with which we are faced.
The Government, apparently, are not thinking of recalling the House at all before the General Election, which is an unusual but interesting state of affairs, because it is quite clear, from what we have heard already today, that the Government are contemplating undertaking a number of extremely important acts of policy between the rising of the House and the date on which the General Election will take place.
There are many rumours about the possible date, but most pundits seem to agree that it will fall on 15th October, so that the clear intention of the Government, by naming the date of 19th October, is to ensure that, unless there is an emergency which would justify the recall of the House, the Government will be entirely free between now and the General Election to do exactly what they like without any parliamentary control whatsoever.
It is for that reason that I wish, first, to object to the rising of the House on Friday, because there are a number of matters of the highest importance about which the House should be consulted or about which it should be called upon to give decisions before we have another opportunity after the General Election of taking collective decisions as Members of Parliament. I can think of a number of matters which are outstanding on which we would like replies from the Government. I am very glad to see that we have a representative of the Foreign Office here, because there are some quite important matters on foreign policy about which the Government will have to make serious decisions within the next few weeks, as to which I want very briefly to call attention. I hope that we shall also have here very soon a

representative of the Post Office. I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I see the Assistant Postmaster-General is here, wish to raise the question which I raised briefly in another form on a point of order.
Before I do so let me just briefly put one or two of the points on foreign affairs on which we should like to have answers. I, personally, would like to know what protest the Government intend to make to the United States Government about their reinforcement of their military forces in South Vietnam. Since the Prime Minister has committed this country to the support of American policy in Vietnam and specifically in South Vietnam we are very deeply involved indeed, and the fact that the Americans have now officially decided, and have announced their decision, to reinforce their troops in South Vietnam is a matter of very serious concern to this country and to the people of this country with all the repercussions which may flow from that decision, and I would hope that we shall have a reply on that point.
Then, the Organisation of American States has just decided, again on the initiative of the Government of the United States, to take collective economic sanctions against Cuba, collective economic sanctions in the form of the cutting off of all economic supplies to Cuba except for purely humanitarian purposes and the cutting off of all sea communications to Cuba. This is a form of economic sanction and, therefore, an enforcement measure which comes under the United Nations Charter.
The hon. Gentleman will know, if he consults Articles 52 to 54 of the Charter, which provide for the operations of regional arrangements within the Charter, that no enforcement measures can be taken without the approval of the Security Council of the United Nations. I want to know from the Government whether they intend to raise in the Security Council of the United Nations the question of the decision of the Organisation of American States to take enforcement action against Cuba without seeking first the approval of the Security Council. Can I have an answer to that, please?
Then, thirdly, I should like to know what protest the Government have made, or intend to make, about the speech made


in Bad Tutzing in West Germany on 16th July by the American Ambassador to Bonn. This was a speech connected with the interests of this country, as I think the hon. Gentleman will immediately perceive if I merely extract one or two significant sentences from that speech. He said that
Germany is now strong, politically and economically
and that Germany is,
according to many indices, the second strongest nation in the free world.
Do the Government accept that Germany is now the second strongest nation in the free world? Do they regard this as the act of a friendly ally, that their representative should inform the German Government that they are now regarded by the United States as their strongest ally? Has the Foreign Office considered the implications of this statement for the Paris Agreements and the revised Brussels Treaty?
Thereunder, it was laid down that West Germany should never again become the strongest military Power in the Western Alliance and that its armaments and military strength would be severely limited and restricted so as to be at least below the level of those of any other major Power in the Western world. If this means that in view of the American Government the spirit and intentions of the Brussels Treaty and the Paris Agreements have been violated by collaboration between the United States and Germany, I want to know what the Government's intentions are in this respect.
The American Ambassador went on to say that as West Germany was now so strong she ought to accept her responsibilities not only in Europe, but also outside, and that
If the world struggle against Communism is to succeed, this great strength is needed not just in protecting Germany's own borders but wherever freedom is in jeopardy.'
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would comment on the significance of that, which was underlined when the Ambassador went on to say that West Germany should give military and economic aid to countries in the free world which, as he put it, were in jeopardy, such as Vietnam. What is the position when two countries which are members of the N.A.T.O. Alliance assist

one another militarily in the pursuit of military operations outside the area of the N.A.T.O. Treaty? What is the view of the Foreign Office on that question, if it has a view?
I deal next with a matter which affects the Postmaster-General. I imagine that hon. Members have not yet grasped the full significance of the agreements regarding the establishment of a world telecommunications network by means of satellites, which have been initialled and approved by the British Government.
Perhaps I might be allowed to refer to the significance of the agreements to bring home my point that the House should not rise until it has had an opportunity of expressing its view on British participation in the agreements. The significance of the agreements is that for the first time in the history of man it will be possible to establish simultaneous world-wide communications between all human beings all over the globe. This is an awesome prospect. It opens up immense possibilities for human good, for bringing human beings together in simultaneous communication, and for living through an experience together.
We all recall those moving occasions when, through the Telstar relay, we were able to witness the funeral of President Kennedy, and also to see Mr. and Mrs. Khrushchev going to the American Embassy in Moscow to pay their tribute, as private individuals, to the memory of President Kennedy. Through the medium of simultaneous television communication, that experience was shared not only by millions of people in this country, but by hundreds of millions of people throughout Europe, the Soviet Union, and the United States. The possibility of extending such a system of communications and of simultaneously living through moments of history together as human beings is something that we can hardly envisage.
These two agreements—one is a Special Agreement—provide for the design, ownership, management, operation, and control of a system of satellites which will make possible—and as far as I can see they will be the only carriers of such communications—simultaneous worldwide television communications.

Mr. Robert Cooke: In a question which the hon. Gentleman asked yesterday, and which was the


subject of his earlier remarks, he did not mention directly the interests of the United Kingdom. He mentioned the United Nations, and went on to talk about the Chinese People's Republic. I took that to be the Communist part of China. Why did the hon. Gentleman mention only that particular Communist country? Why did he single out that country as being one of those which did not belong to the International Telecommunication Union? Why is he particularly interested in this Communist country? Is he thinking of no other, or is he just interested in Communist countries?

Mr. Warbey: If the hon. Gentleman waits a moment, I shall answer all his questions.
I was about to deal with the involvement of British interests, Western European interests, the interests of Asian and African countries and the interests of Communist countries in this matter. As it is a global matter, the whole world is interested in it, and I should have thought that the British people would be the first to be interested in something which concerned the whole world.
One agreement begins with a preamble which recalls a resolution of the United Nations, in which the hon. Gentleman might be interested. It says:
Recalling the principle set forth in Resolution No. 1721 (xvi) of the General Assembly of the United Nations that communications by means of satellites should be available to the nations of the world as soon as practicable on a global and non-discriminatory basis …
I should have thought that the first interest of every hon. Member of this House would be to see that any system which was set up satisfied that condition; that it was one which was genuinely open to control by the peoples of the whole world, and not by any small group of countries, not by any individual countries, and, above all, not by commercial private interests.
The fact is that the agreement which the Government say thay have approved—but they have not made arrangements to seek Parliamentary sanction for their agreement to it—provides that this vast system of communications shall become a Western monopoly, that within that Western monopoly it shall be the monopoly of the United States, and that within the United States it shall be the monopoly

of a private commercial interest, the Communications Satellite Corporation.
In other words, what we have enshrined in the agreements is a plan for commercial television on a worldwide scale which I doubt whether even hon. Gentlemen opposite, who always put commercial interests before the interests of the British people, would like to see, namely, a television system controlled and operated by commercial interests.
My first point is that in approving the agreements the Government have abandoned the interests of the British people and of the peoples of the whole world in the greatest of all applications of modern science. They have handed over the interests of Britain and of the rest of the world to the selfish monopoly groups.
As the hon. Member knows, the Agreements provide that the satellite system shall be owned, controlled, operated and managed by a committee in which 61 per cent. of the votes will be held by the Communications Satellite Corporation—a private American company with a Government subsidy. He knows, moreover, that British and Western European participation is powerless to have any effect on the decisions of the American Government and this American private corporation, because many decisions can be taken by a simple majority vote, which means simply by the corporation, and that even those decisions requiring a qualified majority of 69½ per cent. must be basically American decisions, because the qualified majority provision amounts only to a veto provision, and when we are dealing with practical operations in which all concerned are interested a veto provision is utterly valueless.
What can one do with one's veto power? All that one can do is to stop anything being done at all, thus producing a complete deadlock. Therefore, since everybody wants something to be done, in the last resort everybody is forced to accept just what the corporation proposes.
Even in the narrow terms of the agreements the Postmaster-General has not fought for any real British share of control. Why are we contributing only 8·4 per cent.? If we contributed 8½ per cent. we would have been able, together with the United States, to dominate the


committee even on matters requiring a qualified majority. But we are allotted only 8·4 per cent., so that we do not even have that minor concession.
We can be outvoted and outnumbered by the Common Market. Countries belonging to it are bound by the Treaty of Rome to act together in the matter of telecommunications, as the Postmaster-General knows, and their combined votes will be double ours. So, to the extent that there is any power in this committee which is shared with the United States it will be the power of the Common Market, and not Britain. What other countries are admitted to this secret inner circle at the beginning? They are other Western European countries, the white members of the British Commonwealth—none of the African or Asian nations—Spain, Portugal and Japan. These are the countries which are assembled together and gathered round this American monopoly. This is what the right hon. Gentleman has consented to. In so doing he has abandoned British interests. He has abandoned even British commercial interest.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that the money that we are putting up is "chickenfeed". We are called upon to provide £2 million a year for three, or possibly five, years by the terms of the agreements. We could easily have provided £10 million a year for a project of this magnitude. Why did not the Postmaster-General stake a bigger claim—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must remember the Question before the House.

Mr. Warbey: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I was putting a question to the Postmaster-General which I wanted him to answer before the House rises, namely, why he has acted in the way that he has done already in initialing and approving the agreements. I was asking the specific question why, if he felt that it was necessary and that we had no alternative but to enter into some kind of agreement of this character because the Americans were determined to go ahead anyhow, he did not at least put up a fight for British interests. Why did not he combine with the Western European countries in ensuring

that Britain and Western Europe would have a dominating interest, or at least an interest equal to that of the United States?
Finally, I want to know when the Postmaster-General intends to get from this House the approval of a British signature to the Agreements, which he said on 26th February that he would seek. In reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) he said that the House ought to consider and pronounce upon the Agreements before the Government signed them, and that he hoped that it would be possible for us to do so. How does he now intend to carry out that promise? Will he tell us today how he intends to carry out his undertaking that the Government would not sign the agreements until the House had had an opportunity of considering them, in detail, and pronouncing whether or not they were good agreements and ones to which this country should be a party?
I want to know exactly when he proposes to submit the Agreements to the House for approval. If he cannot tell us the date on which they will be submitted for approval, I want from him an assurance that the British Government will not sign the Agreements until after the General Election. I want a general assurance one way or the other, either that there will be a date on which Parliament will pronounce on the Agreements, or that the Government will not sign them until after the General Election.
They become open for signature on 19th August, when we are in recess. They become effective and binding upon the Government's concerned as soon as two Governments have signed them. On 19th August it will be necessary only for the United States Government and one other Government to sign them for them to become effective and to come into operation immediately. The commercial company can then begin to place the orders and contracts and begin to prepare agreements with the earth stations and communication carriers, such as the B.B.C. and I.T.A. All that can happen on or immediately after 19th August.
Once again, I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether we will have a chance,


before that date, to pronounce upon it and, if not, whether we can have an assurance that the Government will not sign the Agreements until after the General Election.

4.30 p.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I wish to say only two words. They are—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Gentleman has said them.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: —more in the nature of an appeal to hon. Members on both sides, but particularly to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey).
I do not think that it would be a bad idea if back benchers, on this occasion, followed the lead given by the two Front Benches. We have heard from the Leader of the Opposition that the Opposition have agreed to call off a debate so that more time may be given to 15 back bench Members who have given notice of topics that they wish to raise and so that back benchers can have their full rights with a Minister in attendance to give an answer. That agreement has been made through the usual channels, and it reflects good sense and is helpful to parliamentary procedure.
The Adjournment Motion is important. If there are legitimate reasons why it should be questioned or commented upon, it is right that that should be done. However, I hope that because 15 hon. Members are waiting to state a case of which they have given notice hon. Members will not take up too much time on this Motion in order to jump the queue.

Mr. Warbey: I have not done that.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I am not charging the hon. Gentleman with having done anything other than ask a question. I thought that he took rather longer in asking it than was necessary, but that is a matter of opinion. Certainly, the first part of his speech came in the category of what I am saying now. In the first part he raised general foreign affairs, which he knows come within the scope of the House being recalled by the direction of Mr. Speaker if that needs to be done. It might be that some comment is called for from the Front Bench on the second half of the hon. Gentleman's speech about the timing of the signing of the Agreements to which he referred.
I feel that we as back benchers, who are always complaining that members of the Front Benches take up far too much time, now have an opportunity to help ourselves. I hope that on this occasion hon. Members will not jump the queue, as has happened on many other occasions in the past, by making during the debate on the Adjournment Motion speeches which could and should be made after giving formal notice, which other hon. Members have done. I am merely asking for restraint.

Mr. Warbey: rose—

Sir Harmar Nicholls: That is a difficult thing to ask of the hon. Gentleman, but perhaps others will heed it, because by doing so we shall be helping ourselves as back benchers.

Mr. Warbey: Since the hon. Gentleman has made some implied accusations, may I say this. First, he will bear in mind that, if 15 hon. Members want to speak this afternoon or this evening, no more than five hours will be needed. Secondly, there are some matters which hon. Members wish to raise which cannot properly be raised on the Consolidated Fund Bill because they deal not with past decisions, but with decisions which are in prospect. Those are matters which can properly be raised on the Motion for the Adjournment, because they are matters which require the House to stay in session so that the decisions of the Government can be communicated to it.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: I will not take the advice of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), who thought fit to lecture back benchers on their duties, but, none the less, I do not intend to speak at length. The Leader of the House is a Methodist, and I think that he is a good one. He will know that every Methodist preacher, if he is wise, has three points for his sermon and a good peroration. I have one point and no peroration, which the House will be pleased to hear.
I should be failing in my duty to my constituents and to the people of South Wales if I were to let the House adjourn without reminding right hon. and hon. Members that it is wrong to leave unsettled the grievous problem of the security of people in their own homes.


Two hon. Members opposite for whom I have very great respect—the hon. Members for Worcester (Mr. Walker) and Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour)—have issued a pamphlet on house ownership and on giving young people the opportunity to buy their own homes and to have security.
If the House accepts the Adjournment Motion, it will be saying to the people of South Wales that it is not concerned with their security in owner-occupation. The Minister will know that there are no people in the United Kingdom with a greater pride in home ownership than the Welsh people. In South Wales, 50 per cent. of the houses are owner-occupied. In the valleys, where there is a massive Labour majority, 75 per cent. of them are owner-occupied.
Our people believe in having a stake in the country if they are allowed to have one, but, unfortunately, as we were reminded by the Lord Chancellor, when he was Attorney-General, when they buy their houses on the leasehold system they are only tenants. A property-owning democracy is not possible until this system is reformed. I hope that the Leader of the House will bear in mind that it would be wrong to adjourn without the Government making a statement about their policy on this question.
Another point about which I am concerned—and I will keep my promise to be brief—is that every day I am getting letters from people who are frightened of their ground landlords. Hon. Members who come from Wales will know that I am not exaggerating in the slightest when I say that good, thrifty, hard-working people who bought their own homes are frightened because they know that when the ground landlord refuses to renew the lease they stand in danger of losing their homes. It would be wrong to adjourn without the Government saying that they are prepared to do something for these people.
On the last "Welsh day" but one, the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs told us that he thought that Western Ground Rents, which is the largest single ground landlord in South Wales—

Mr. A. Lewis: Who are the directors?

Mr. Thomas: One hon. Member opposite is a director. I will not name him, because he is not here.
This company charges as much as £500 merely to renew the lease on a terraced house and then increases the cost of the lease by four times—400 per cent. Is it fair that there should be in our island people who are held to ransom in this way, with the Government having nothing to say in their defence before we adjourn for our long Recess?
The last point that I wish to make is this. If people want to move from the City of Cardiff and take employment elsewhere, they find that they cannot sell the house or that it has to go for a song if the lease is under 30 years. The mobility of working people is impeded. Have the Government nothing to say to people who cannot sell their house because of the present system, who cannot renew their lease and who are held to ransom in a ridiculous way?
It was said of one of our monarchs—

Sir Harmar Nicholls: This is the peroration.

Mr. Thomas: Yes. I have got one after all. The hon. Gentleman is very mean to draw attention to the fact!
It was said of one of our monarchs that when she died there would be found written across her heart the word "Calais". I believe that when I die there will be written across my heart the word "leasehold", because I have lived with this problem. I see it in operation, and I have resolved that, if I do nothing else as long as I am here—and I hope to come back—I shall do my best to ensure that the leasehold problem is tackled. It would be very wrong for us to adjourn for a long period without the Government saying something on this problem.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas). I wish that he had mentioned the hon. Member who is the director of the company to which he has referred, because I am interested in the fact that the hon. Member, who is absent—and who, incidentally, is often absent—in addition to his many other commitments as director of various land companies, also does legal work, for which I do not know what he gets.
I was interested in column 1203 of HANSARD for yesterday, from which it will be seen that a number of hon. Members, in addition to their Parliamentary salary and legal fees, receive quite handsome rewards. For example, the hon. Member who has been mentioned and others get £200 a year and £25 per day. It may be wondered what this has to do with the Motion for the Adjournment. I want to oppose the Motion until such time as I get from the Leader of the House information about what the Government intend to do between now and 19th October—which, I see, is the date when it is suggested we should return—to give active help and assistance to old-age pensioners and those living on retirement pensions.
We shall be going away from here. Most of us will be having a holiday. According to whether our seats are marginal, such as mine, or whether they are not, hon. Members may be working in their constituencies. Quite a lot of hon. Members, however, including myself—probably most of us—will be going away on holiday. Some will, perhaps, go abroad, and some to places in this country. No doubt, and rightly, they will enjoy that well-earned rest.
But there will be hundreds of thousands of men and women who have given a lifetime of service to the country, who have helped to build up our so-called affluent society, and the wealth of the country, who will not be able to afford a holiday this summer. If we can afford to pay hon. Members £20 or £30 a day, as well as £300 or £400 a year, in addition to their Parliamentary salaries, we ought to be able to pay something to the old-age pensioners.
I want the Leader of the House to consider this suggestion and to ask the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he can do something. I know that time is short, but it is not impossible. Last week, by arrangement, we dealt with the Malta Independence Bill, which we passed through all its stages in one day. I am sure that there is not one hon. Member in the House, with the exception probably of the Government Front Bench, who would not welcome the raising of old-age pensions. I do not think that there is an hon. Member, on either side, even though hon. Members opposite may have opposed

such a move consistently in the past, who, if the Bill were introduced at this moment, would not give every help and support to get it through, as it could go through.
I do not see why the Leader of the House cannot promise us that tomorrow, on the nod, his right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance will introduce a Bill to increase retirement pensions by 5s. or 10s., or whatever the sum may be—I should like to see it 10s.—because over the years, and particularly over the past few months, the Government have been responsible for increasing the cost of living.
I had a reply to a Question, which appears in HANSARD this morning, from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food stating that in one month, from May to June, the cost of food alone rose by another 2 per cent. This is happening almost month after month. What will happen now? We are in July. Then we shall have August, September and October—2 per cent., 2 per cent. and 2 per cent. [Laughter.] It is not a laughing matter. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) may try to be impertinent and tell us what we should and should not raise on this Motion—

Sir Harmar Nicholls: rose—

Mr. Lewis: No, I am not giving way. It is not a laughing matter. It is a serious matter. If there is a cost of living rise of 2 per cent. last month, 2 per cent. this month and 2 per cent. next month, which is what has been happening, it is very hard on those on retirement pension and on limited incomes.
Hence, I do not think that we should adjourn until such time as we have from the Leader of the House a promise either way—I do not care which way it is—that the Government will increase retirement pensions, or will see to it that the cost of living and the cost of food will not again go up in August, September and October. There is no question about November. We shall have another Government then. We are not worried about that. I am dealing only with the Motion, which proposes adjourning until 19th October.
I read last week that the price of bread is to go up again. Confectionery is to go up again. Fares have gone up. Old-age pensioners cannot get concessionary fares because of the Government. All these things are happening, but we are talking about going away on holiday, or about hon. Members opposite trying to save their seats, some of them trying to retrieve their positions. We will mostly be on holiday. It is terrible that we should leave the situation as it is without getting something from the Government. We have had from the Prime Minister on many occasions the statement that there should be frank speaking. Let us have some frank speaking today.
There is another point which is rather strange. The Government claim that they will always implement their promises. For the past 12 months, I have been asking the Government to implement just one promise and I have put down a number of Questions, to which I have not as yet had a satisfactory answer. I have received various Answers saying that the Government would implement their promise, that they intended to do so and that they did not need legislation for the purpose. If we adjourn, as the Motion suggests, from the end of this week until 19th October, when will the Government implement their promise to denationalise Richard Thomas and Baldwins? They promised me only a week or so ago that they intended to do it and that they did not need legislation. That is another promise—I could quote hundreds of such promises—that the Government have made. I want to know from the Leader of the House whether that will happen when the House is in recess, because it was said in reply to my last Question that the Government do not need legislation and can do it at any time.
May I have an assurance from the Government that they will not denationalise Richard Thomas and Baldwins whilst the House is in recess? If they intend to implement their promise, if they are denationalising, will the Leader of the House give an assurance that he will arrange for the House to be recalled before it takes place?
Therefore, I will support the Motion for the Adjournment of the House until 19th October if I get satisfactory replies to these two vital questions. In fact, I

shall be pleased to do so, knowing not only that we will adjourn until 19th October but that we shall not see the present Government sitting on the benches opposite after we return in the autumn.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): The Question is, That this House, at its rising on Friday, do adjourn till Monday, 19th October. Those that are of that opinion say "Aye". … To the contrary—

Mr. A. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Are we not to have a reply from the Government? If not, I must raise another point on the Motion for the Adjournment for the Recess.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I had begun to collect the voices. I was very deliberate in putting the Question.

Mr. Warbey: rose—

Mr. A. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. With respect, I do not think that you had actually collected the voices. I think that you had read the Motion and were about to put the Question.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: rose—

Mr. Lewis: I am on a point of order. With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I think that you were starting to put the Question when I rose to raise with you the fact that I thought the Minister was not going to reply.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I should like to—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. If I may reply to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis), I am sure that no one in the House wants to close the Session on a note of misunderstanding. I thought that I had put the Question rather deliberately. I thought that I had collected the voices "Aye", but it is a fact that I had not collected the voices "No". If an hon. Member wishes to rise and make a speech, not an hon. Member who has already spoken, I am prepared to call him.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): rose—

Mr. A. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I thank you most sincerely for the way in which you dealt with that point of order?

Mr. Lloyd: Perhaps the reason why I did not rise to speak just now was that I feared that it might interefere with the apparent note of harmony in our proceedings.
I will deal with the speeches not in the order in which they were made. I know the anxiety of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) about the position of leaseholders. He made a very good constituency point. This is a matter which has been ventilated from time to time, and I really do not think that the existence of the problem is a reason why we should vote against the Motion.
The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) has been a Member of the House of Commons, except for an intermission—the cessation of which some of us regret—since 1945. Perhaps there is one matter which gives us equal satisfaction—that we completely disagree with one another on almost every issue of foreign affairs, because I take the view that the hon. Member loses no opportunity of injecting poison into any matter affecting our relations with our allies. I think that he is the fellow-traveller par excellence and the friend of every country but his own. That is my view. The hon. Member probably disagrees with me on that just as profoundly as he does on other matters.

Mr. Warbey: I must say that I am astonished at the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He started off by talking about harmony after he had tried to run away from his obligations to the House on a procedural device. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, the right hon. and learned Gentleman tried to take advantage of the fact that Mr. Deputy-Speaker had risen to collect the voices. He sat there in silence because he was afraid to answer the questions that had been put to him by hon. Members. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will now behave with a little more dignity and a little more sense of respect for the House and give some replies to the questions that we have put to him and stop this electioneering nonsense.

Mr. Lloyd: I have heard of Satan rebuking people for sin, but I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should be so sensitive in view of some of the things that he says about other people from time to time. It is interesting to see how sensi-

tive he is. He put forward his very well-known views on foreign policy, and I really do not think they are worth dealing with; and I think that that would be the general view of most hon. Members.
The hon. Member raised a particular matter in connection with the Satellite Communications Agreements—

Mr. Warbey: rose—

Mr. Lloyd: I will not give way.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) will not abuse his position. He has made one speech, which is all that he is entitled to make. He has, by courtesy, been allowed to raise more than one question, but I hope that he will not abuse his position.

Mr. Warbey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. You are rebuking me for abusing my ability to rise and catch your eye, but I hope that you are rebuking the right hon. and learned Gentleman equally for abusing his position by running away—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order, Order. I was, in fact, rebuking nobody. I was expressing a hope.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member for Ashfield talked about the Satellite Communications Agreements. I think that he talked more nonsense about that subject in 10 minutes than I would have believed possible. He made a point against my right hon. Friend, saying that he was in breach of an undertaking to the House. What my right hon. Friend said was that he hoped to be able to consult the House about the matter. The timing of the negotiations has been such that the agreements cannot be signed until August.
The hon. Member raised again the bogies of black versus white and the spectre of private enterprise. He knows as well as I do that there is provision in the agreements for other people to join. They are not in any way exclusive agreements. It is open to others to join if they want to. The hon. Gentleman knows well that this is an executive act that the Government have to take if they are responsible. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman would want us to stand aside and let this great enterprise go forward without us. If he did so, I suspect that he would be the first to


criticise us. I believe that we have done an absolutely right act of government and that it is consistent with what we have said and very much in the interest of not only our people, but the people of the world.

Mr. Warbey: rose—

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis)—we have agreeable interchanges from time to time—had the courage or effrontery, whatever one calls it, to raise the question of pensions, and asked what we meant to do to help old-age penioners. I think that we are all aware of the difficulties of old-age pensioners. They have had five increases in pension in our time as the Government. For every 1s. rise in the cost of living since we have been in power the pension has gone up 2s. 3d. Between 1946 and 1951 the cost of living went up faster than the pension.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about food prices. Between 1957 and 1963 the rise in the price of food was 9 per cent., or 1s. 10d. in the £, whereas between 1946 and 1952, even with food subsidies, the rise was 58 per cent., or 11s. 7d. in the £.

Mr. A. Lewis: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recollect that I was not asking him what was happening 10 or 20 years ago, particularly in 1945, because a lot of the old men who were alive then are now dead and are not interested in whether the cost of living goes up or down and whether the Government have doubled the pension or not.
What I emphasised, and what I thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman understood, was the fact that in the last two or three months, since the pension increase, the price of food has gone up. During the last month it has gone up by 2 per cent. In fact, it has been going up consistently 2 per cent. each month. I asked what he intended to do in anticipation of the increase that will be going on between now and October. Can he tell us what

he will do about those months—which are ahead of us and not behind us?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, I will tell the hon. Gentleman very plainly and clearly. I do not accept his statistics. But when we are returned to power we will ensure that the old-age pensioners share in the increased prosperity of the country, which we have done, and which the Opposition failed to do when they were the Government. That is our policy. That we stand by, that we will do and that we will have the chance to do. Whether the hon. Member is here to see us or not, is a different matter.
I come back from this nice electioneering atmosphere to the practical problem of whether the House should rise on Friday. I say again what I said during the debate about the Whitsun Recess. It is a matter of duty that I should press this Motion upon the House. The tired, worn-out, dispirited Opposition need a rest, particularly the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, who has a highly marginal seat. He must be about his business, nursing his seat and seeking out the small number of votes which might conceivably bring him back to us.
In all good temper, I really feel that I am speaking for the Opposition when I say that it is right that the House should accept the Motion. It is in the interests of right hon. and hon. Members opposite in particular and also of hon. Members in general. I must, therefore, press the Motion.

Mr. A. Lewis: I expected the right hon. and learned Gentleman to deal with the other question I raised—the question of the sale of Richard Thomas and Baldwins. We have had a pledge from the Government about it and the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that they observed their promises. Is that pledge to be implemented?

Mr. Lloyd: I doubt whether during the Recess.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Friday, do adjourn till Monday, 19th October.

STRENGTHENING OF MARRIAGE

5.2 p.m.

Mr. John Parker: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable a further marriage to be contracted by either spouse when a separation has persisted for five years.
In recent months there has been considerable disquiet in the House about the rise in the number of illegitimate births. What is not generally realised, however, is that nearly 40 per cent. of the illegitimate births take place in what are in fact stable families, where father and mother live in the same household and bring up their children together. These children are the offspring of de facto marriages which are not legal because one or other of the parents is not in a position to marry his or her partner.
I believe that marriage would be strengthened if it were possible for such marriages to be made legal and for their children to be legitimised. It is the case that, after desertion for three years, it is possible for one of the partners to remarry. I am suggesting that, after a separation of five years, it should be possible for either of the parties then to remarry if he or she so desires. Why the period of five years? I submit that life is short. Five years is one-tenth of an adult's normal life-span these days, taking the period from age 20 to age 70 as being a reasonable expectation of adult life.
What I propose has been the law in Australia since 1959, when a Federal law was passed replacing the various State laws, thus giving a uniform marriage law throughout Australia. It has worked very well there. It was introduced as the result of experience in one State, Western Australia, going back many years.
Many reverend gentlemen, including the Archbishop, have stated that one of the important problems to be discussed is some arrangement for ending of marriage by consent. I submit that that is not the problem at all. If, at the present time, any two people wish to terminate a marriage nothing is simpler than to arrange an act of adultery or to see that sufficient evidence is produced

to suggest that adultery has taken place. What is required is an alteration in the law to enable a marriage to be ended without the necessary consent of the other party.
It is alleged that this would be unfair because one party is guilty and the other is not. In reply, I would say that it takes two to make a marriage and also two to break it. This matter should not be settled on the basis of whether one party or the other is or is not guilty.
It may also be said that this would offend religious views. But I urge very strongly that this country is now a secular country. The marriage law should meet the needs of all the people and not only those of a particular sect. It should be for Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Humanists, Agnostics, Jews and Moslems and all the various Protestant sects. Many Protestants accept the views of Archbishop Cranmer that it is right and proper, when a marriage has broken down, to terminate it rather than the views sometimes put forward in this House.
At present, only one-tenth of our people are regular church-goers every Sunday. I believe that it is perfectly right and proper for any particular Church to have rules for its own members. No Church, however, has the right to impose its views on the great mass of the people who do not belong to it. It would be quite right and reasonable for any Church to deny communion to, to ex-communicate or to expel a member who does not carry out its views on this matter, but it is not right for it to try to dictate to others who are not members of that Church what the law of the land should be—not even to lapsed members.
It is suggested that this change would be unfair to a particular individual if he or she did not want a divorce, since the other partner could enforce it. I put the opposite point. I think that it is wrong that one individual should now be able to prevent his or her ex-partner from making a second marriage when the first has failed just because he or she may have religious objections or may want revenge. It is wrong that we should have this religious persecution enshrined in the law. For the present situation is, in fact, religious persecution. If one person enforces his view


about marriage on some other person in this way, then that is persecuting that person by forcing him to observe religious views which he does not possess. It is high time that we took such practices outside the law of the land.
I am not proposing to go into the question of children now, since that is a different matter. There is a very strong case for properly looking after the children of divorcees but also a very strong case for looking after all fatherless children, whether they be the children of deserted wives, of widows, or of women trying to bring up children in their own household, although unmarried. There is, in fact, a very strong case for overhauling all social services as they affect fatherless children and this should certainly include all the children of divorcees and deserted wives. This is quite apart from any alteration now proposed in the law of marriage and divorce.
Such a change in the social services for fatherless children should be on the basis of a common United Kingdom social service. But it is high time to consider also having a common United Kingdom law of marriage and divorce and not having separate laws for different parts of the island. That would end the Gretna Green scandal and would be a natural corollary of developing the social services on a common United Kingdom basis for fatherless children, including the children of divorcees.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Parker, Mr. M. Foot, Sir B. Stross, and Mr. Taverne.

STRENGTHENING OF MARRIAGE

Bill to enable a further marriage to be contracted by either spouse when a separation has persisted for five years, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 208.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

REPRESENTATIONAL SERVICES OVERSEAS

5.11 p.m.

Mr. Humphry Berkeley: I am glad to have the opportunity of drawing to the attention of the House the Plowden Report on Representational Services Overseas.
I fear that I must start by delivering a word of mild rebuke to my own Front Bench, which, in the end of term atmosphere in which we find ourselves, I trust will appear to be benign rather than baleful. The Plowden Report is one of the most important documents to have been produced by a committee in this Session of Parliament. I cannot help feeling that it is a very great pity that the Government should not have found time for us to have a full day's debate on the subject. Over the past few weeks, we have had some knockabout debates, no doubt enjoyable, but some would have been slightly more appropriate to the Cambridge Union than to the House of Commons.
There is a case for arguing that if the House is to be taken seriously by the people we must be given an opportunity of having thoughtful debates on issues which have profound consequences for the whole status of the country abroad. I hope that after the election, when the Leader of the House is still the Leader of the House, he will give some thought to the ways and means whereby our debates can have more relevance to the contemporary needs of our society.
In most respects, this is an admirable Report. Its most far reaching recommendation is that there should be an amalgamation of what are now called the Foreign Service and the Commonwealth Service to provide one unified Diplomatic Service to represent the country abroad. I for one very much welcome that. It is something I myself


have advocated publicly for the last three or four years. At a time when the Commonwealth Relations Office has had an unprecedented expansion in the number of its missions overseas and when it plainly did not have the manpower to fill those posts, it obviously made sense for the two services to amalgamate in this way, and for people to be cross-posted, as they now will be, between Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth posts.
I must confess that I am disappointed that no attention seems to have been paid to a plea which I made several years ago. It was not an original plea because it was referred to in some detail in the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates, which considered the Commonwealth Relations Office in July 1959. The plea was that during a period of decolonisation—very rapid decolonisation as things have turned out—we ought not to lose for the service of the country the immense reservoir of experience and talent existing in the Colonial Service. In 1959 the Select Committee on Estimates reported:
… the C.O. should not miss the opportunity of strengthening itself by filling its vacancies … as far as possible from the Colonial Service officers … The C.R.O. does not, however, share this view. Your Committee therefore recommend that every possible advantage should be taken of this source of recruits, and that the C.R.O. should throw over its inhibitions concerning the unacceptability of these officers to the new Governments…
In fact, we have missed a wonderful opportunity of recruiting people who have served in administrative posts in Africa, many with a lifetime's experience of working in that continent and who could have brought to bear experience which would have been invaluable in a diplomatic rôle. The Commonwealth Relations Office, as the Select Committee recognised, has had a wholly irrational prejudice against these people for many years.
The Civil Service Commissioners have not made life any easier by insisting that Colonial Service officers should sit for the home Civil Service examination before they can be accepted on transfer to other Government Departments. I have always thought that it is quite absurd to submit distinguished men, perhaps in their middle 40s, to the humiliation of sitting for an examination whose whole purpose is to ascertain qualities about them which are

in fact already known in many reports from governors, chief secretaries and so on.
Largely due to the wholly irrational prejudice of the Commonwealth Relations Office and the inflexibility of mind of the Civil Service Commissioners, we have, unfortunately, lost for ourselves a treasure of knowledge of Africa which any other country would have given the earth to have possessed. I am sorry that even at this late stage the Plowden Committee could not have made a positive recommendation in respect of that class of person.
Where the Plowden Report seriously fails to pursue the logic of its own thinking is in recommending the continuation of the two offices, the Foreign Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office, for the conduct of Britain's diplomacy abroad. As we know, it recommends the amalgamation of the Services, but also the continuation of the two separate offices.
I will quote from paragraphs 41 and 44 of the Report which get to the nub of the problem and produce unanswerable evidence in favour of the amalgamation of the Foreign and Commonwealth Relations Offices. Paragraph 41 deals with certain shortcomings in the present system It states:
The most serious of these is that the division of the world for representational purposes into Commonwealth, non-Commonwealth countries impedes the development and execution of a coherent foreign policy. It cuts across every other kind of international grouping and association. Membership of the Commonwealth is only one of the factors which helps to shape the policy of any Commonwealth country and it is rarely the decisive one.
The Report goes on, in paragraph 44, to say:
The logic of events points towards the amalgamation of the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Foreign Office. The unified control and execution of our external policy as a whole which would result would be a rational and helpful development. This must, in our view, be the ultimate aim. However, to take such a fundamental step now could be misinterpreted as implying a loss of interest in the Commonwealth partnership.
And then is added, as it seems to me totally going back on the previous argument:
We therefore hesitate to recommend the establishment of a single Ministry of External Affairs … at the present time.


There are two points. First, the argument in paragraph 41 is, I think, absolutely valid and unanswerable. Secondly if, in fact, the only reason why the Plowden Committee decided against the amalgamation of the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Foreign Office was it might now be misinterpreted as implying a loss of interest in the Commonwealth partnership, I should like to know when there is likely to be a time which would be more acceptable. Would it be easier in five, ten or twenty years time? Why would it be easier? If it is the right thing to do, why should not we do it at the present time? I propose to say a few words about Commonwealth reaction to these proposals a little later on.
I should like to underline my own view that it is nonsensical for the external affairs policy of this country to be divided between two separate Government Departments, one of which is responsible for the diplomatic relations with the 17 other members of the Commonwealth and one of which is responsible for the 80-odd countries outside the Commonwealth. I do not believe that the existence of two quite separate Government Departments handling our external affairs in this way can prevent there being two separate views on many issues which arise in different parts of the world where there are Foreign Office and Commonwealth Relations Office interests. I feel bound to say that I do not believe that the Commonwealth Relations Office, which was initially created as a sort of liaison machinery between Whitehall and the White Dominions, has the capacity to act in the sphere of diplomacy with the same knowledge of world events and the same experience as the Foreign Office.
If one needs proof of this, one has only, to look at the events which took place at the beginning of the year in Zanzibar to see what can happen and what a Government Department which is not versed in the arts of diplomacy can do if it is in charge of a particular sphere of our interests. Our handling of the Zanzibar question was calamitous. I suppose that it was the Colonial Office which was responsible for giving independence to the wrong people. Where I think that the Commonwealth Relations Office must bear a very heavy

share of the burden is in respect of the ludicrous delay of five weeks which took place between the revolution breaking out and recognition being granted to the Zanzibar Government; and of the humiliating position of our High Commissioner being expelled from Zanzibar and the even more Gilbertian situation of our granting recognition to the Zanzibar Government within 48 hours of our High Commissioner having been expelled. I do not believe that any problem could have been more maladroitly handled.
I discussed this with certain officials in the Commonwealth Relations Office, and I was given what I consider to be a wholly unbelievable answer. I was told, "Of course, the Secretrary of State likes to deal with one problem at a time, and he was very busy over Cyprus." It seems to me that this exactly illustrates the amateurism which exists within the Commonwealth Relations Office and which, I think, stems from the fact that it was never intended to be the centre of this country's diplomacy. That precisely indicates why it is unsatisfactory that the Commonwealth Relations Office should be used in this diplomatic rôle. One has only to imagine what the world would have said if a Foreign Office official said, "I am awfully sorry, we have lost West Berlin, but the Foreign Secretary likes to deal with one problem at a time and he was frightfully busy over South Vietnam." It is inconceivable that such an answer could be given. Yet, owing to the fumblings of our policy in East Africa, we have seen in Zanzibar the first Communist foothold on the continent of Africa.
I believe this to be an immensely serious development and one for which the Commonwealth Relations Office must bear some responsibility because of its dilatoriness during this critical period when much could have been done to avoid the situation which arose had diplomacy been conducted more expertly.
In some ways it is a curious and rather worrying fact that so many of the trouble centres on the circumference—as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary called them in a recent foreign affairs debate—are places where, technically, the Commonwealth Relations Office is in charge. We have the war in Malaysia,


which is a Commonwealth country. Relationships with Malaysia are conducted by the Commonwealth Relations Office. We have Cyprus, which I visited a few months ago, which again, oddly, is a Commonwealth country. There relations are conducted by the Commonwealth Relations Office and not by the Foreign Office. Although the Cyprus problem is a Mediterranean problem, a N.A.T.O. problem, a U.N.O. problem, so far as this country is concerned Cyprus is dealt with by the Commonwealth Relations Office.
Aden is a country in which there is a dual interest. There is the Foreign Office overall interest in the Middle East and the Commonwealth Relations Office interest in Aden. In British Guiana there is a dual interest—in fact, there are three interests; the Commonwealth Relations Office interest in the Caribbean, the Colonial Office direct relationship with British Guiana, and the Foreign Office relationship with the United States of America and the Organisation of American States. As I say, I do not believe that we can put out a coherent, purposeful foreign policy so long as this is being undertaken on our behalf by two Government Departments, and so long as in so many parts of the world where we are threatened with imminent wars, conflagrations and disturbances the vehicle through which we conduct our diplomacy is not the Foreign Office but the Commonwealth Relations Office, which I believe to be too amateur and inexpert to conduct this sort of diplomacy.
I want to say a word or two in elaboration of my view that the Commonwealth Relations Office is not the right Department to conduct this country's diplomacy. It seems that its members have now worked out in their minds certain completely mythical situations which bear very little resemblance to the truth. They talk about the very special family relationship we have. Of course it is a relationship of a sort, but it is not a relationship of such a kind that the traditional arts of diplomacy should not be used.
In some respects the Commonwealth Relations Office in its conduct of relations between this country and the Commonwealth is so frightened of putting a foot wrong and of giving offence that at times it is almost paralysed into inaction.

I recall a case a few months ago when a British lecturer in the University of Ghana had been placed under preventive detention. Our High Commissioner had asked the Ghana Government for permission to visit this British subject, but he was refused permission to do so.
The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations—not my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher), who is to reply to this debate, but one of the others—when questioned about it in the House confirmed that the High Commissioner had not been given access to the British subject who had been detained. He went on to say:
the less said about it … the better."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th January, 1964; Vol. 688, c. 515.]
I thought that a wholly deplorable answer, and I was very pleased to see that it was castigated in The Times in a leader the following day.
What kind of special relationship can it be if one is so frightened to make any protest at all that the least said about it the better? On the contrary, in a case like this the more one says the better. If it is a special family relationship, we should say that this is not the way to behave towards each other's subjects.
I have considerable doubts about the wisdom with which the High Commission in Uganda handled the episode of the rather ridiculous party there a year ago. I had letters from some who were involved in that party. It was made quite clear to me as a result of correspondence that the High Commission in Uganda had been of very much less use to the British subjects involved than any embassy would have been in a foreign country. If the Commonwealth Relations Office view of how to conduct its relationship with our Commonwealth countries is to keep quiet, to say nothing, to shut up and do nothing to cause offence, the sooner the more traditional arts of diplomacy as practised by the Foreign Office are brought to bear, the better it will be for everyone concerned.

Mr. A. Woodburn: I have just come back from Uganda. I found the British people there thought that in view of the unfortunate nature of that party on the whole it was dealt with in perhaps the wisest way. The unwisdom started with the party, not with the handling of it.

Mr. Berkeley: No one, of course, will defend the holding of the party. It was very foolish indeed, but the point is not what the people think there but what assistance was given to the people involved, by the British High Commission in Uganda. I have been in correspondence with some of those people. I am satisfied, no matter what other British residents who were not involved in the party may say, that the people who were involved who were very foolish but were British subjects, would have got more co-operation from any British embassy than they received from the High Commission.
The real question we have to ask ourselves, because this is the basic objection which the Plowden Committee had to the amalgamation of the Foreign Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office, is: would the Commonwealth mind if they were merged? We are often told that this would be a great blow to the interests of the Commonwealth and that other Commonwealth countries would feel that we no longer took the Commonwealth seriously. I can speak only from personal experience. I have visited 13 of the 18 member countries of the Commonwealth, most of them several times. I have frequently put this question, in some cases to Prime Ministers and in some to other Ministers in those countries. I have never encountered any objection from anyone to the idea of merging the Commonwealth Relations Office with the Foreign Office.
We have to recognise that if we are to give new meaning to the Commonwealth and bring significance to the Commonwealth, which all of us feel desirable as a result of the Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference, what is needed is not a Commonwealth Relations Office which is merely a British Government Department, but an institutional organ for the Commonwealth itself. That is why I was tremendously encouraged by the suggestion put forward for the establishment of an international Commonwealth secretariat responsible to all the Commonwealth Governments.
That would not be out of keeping with other international institutions. In N.A.T.O., for example, all the nations have a special relationship, but N.A.T.O. has a Secretariat and has a Council. In this country we do not have a Minister

of N.A.T.O. Affairs nor a N.A.T.O. Ministry. N.A.T.O. is kept together through N.A.T.O. institutions. The Commonwealth can be kept together, not through a British Government Department which serves Britain and Britain's interests, but by Commonwealth institutions, by the Commonwealth conferences, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and a Commonwealth secretariat internationally served and responsible to all the member Governments of the Commonwealth.
When people talk about the abolition of a particular British Government Department, for that is all it is, affecting the whole nature of the Commonwealth they have not the least idea about what kind of organisms the Commonwealth needs in order to be kept together and to grow. The kind of organisation it needs is the kind I have described. Nor would anyone argue that only the Commonwealth Relations Office understands how to deal with the special relationship. After all, we have a very special relationship with the United States and we have had it ever since it became the United States. We have entrusted it to the Foreign Office, and very successfully has that worked. We have to clear our minds of some of these very woolly clouds which surround many discussions about the Commonwealth, and to try to comprehend the realities.
I should like to see a Department of External Affairs covering both the Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth countries with a Ministerial structure based upon geographical areas. How much more effective we could be if, instead of having two Ministers of State and Under-Secretaries for the Foreign Office and the same for the Commonwealth Relations Office, we had a Minister of State for African Affairs with the same detailed knowledge of African politics as Governor Mennen Williams has in the United States Administration. Would it not be a good idea to have a Minister of State for Far Eastern Affairs, a Minister of State for the Middle East, a Minister of State for Europe, a Minister of State perhaps for disarmament, and also, within the Ministry for External Affairs, a Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations who would be primarily responsible for personal contact and protocol rather than for policy? This is


a much more sensible way of trying to build up an effective Ministerial responsibility for the conduct of our vast overseas responsibilities.
I have so far talked about the diplomatic rôle of this country, but the country has a much more important rôle than that. We are by far the richest country in the Commonwealth and one of the richest countries in the world and, now that we are no longer governing the Empire, we have a prime duty to inject aid into the poorer parts of the world. We have to set a lead in establishing a pattern of behaviour between the rich and the poor countries, and that is why it seems to me that the second most important single factor in our evolving relationship with the Commonwealth—this being our special responsibility—must be the establishment, with Cabinet rank, of a full Minister for Overseas Development. I am convinced that this is necessary.
Within its very confined limitations, the Department for Technical Co-operation does an excellent job. Many of us know Sir Andrew Cohen, and those who do, admire him. I have great respect for the enthusiasm which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of Technical Co-operation has shown since he took on the duties. But what a deplorable title for the Ministry. "Technical Co-operation" sounds dismally dull. What deplorable terms of reference the Department has. It is concerned mainly with getting people—getting experts. It is wholly outside its province to deal with any capital project of any kind. After the election, I want to see a Minister in the Cabinet with the title of Minister or Secretary of State for Overseas Development—a Minister in the Cabinet who will have the duty of pressing for money and trying to prise money out of the Treasury. We all realise that the Treasury will say, "No" most of the time, and that any Minister who is not a Cabinet Minister is not in a position to press for money.
No organisation exists in the Government at present which interests itself in development projects overseas and can give advice to developing countries on how their economy can be developed, which project to go for and which project we will finance. The Common-

wealth Relations Office is frightened of interfering and frightened of appearing to be neo-colonialist. It is my belief that if we could produce substantial sums of money and if we could produce from a Government development department plans which could be followed, it would be widely appreciated throughout the Commonwealth and the under-developed world.
I also think that it is about time that we stopped this scandalous fraud of making developing countries pay for the cost of the pensions of their expatriate civil servants, frequently lending them money with which to do so and then calling that money, which we lend them, aid. It is not aid at all. I gather that in 1963–64, £12½ million was loaned to the under-developed countries to pay expatriate civil servants who had all retired to this country, and that £12½ million was included in the figure of overseas aid which we gave. In fact, it was not going abroad at all but was going to Somerset, Cheltenham, Bath and similar places.
I am the last person to complain at compensation being paid to expatriate civil servants. Of course they should be compensated—and generously. In the Zambia debate I attacked the Government for their thoroughly mean behaviour towards the Federal civil servants and towards the non-designated civil servants in Northern Rhodesia. This is an obligation which we should ourselves accept. It is humiliating for a country with a national income per head of the population as high as ours to expect Malawi to borrow money from us, with an income per head of population of only £18 a year, in order to pay their expatriate civil servants. It is a final insult to call these loans, made for this purpose, development aid. We should end this fraud and hypocrisy for ever.
I have spoken at some length, for which I apologise. It is an immensely important subject. We talk about modernisation and it is about time, first of all, that we modernised our diplomacy and the weapon which we have at our command in carrying out our diplomacy; and secondly, that we understood that our obligations to the poorer half of the world have not ceased since we ceased to have an Empire but, on the contrary, have increased. If we are to make that


aid effective, we must have the machinery to do it. That is why I am sorry that the Plowden Committee's Report, excellent as it was, as far as it went, did not carry the matter further and recommend an amalgamated Commonwealth Relations Office and Foreign Office and, in particular, recommend at Cabinet level this all-important appointment of a Minister for Overseas Development, which would enable Britain to undertake to the full her obligations to the modern world.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: We are all grateful to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley), first of all because he has raised the subject of the Plowden Committee's Report in the House when the Government, I think wrongly, declined to give any time to debate it, and, secondly, for a speech which showed what value can attach to the speech of well-informed and independently-minded Members when they take up a subject of this kind. I had expected his speech to be more geared to the Plowden Committee's Report and, in particular, to the main recommendation about the continuance of two Ministries, but he will command support on both sides of the House for a number of things which he said, for example his references to the need for a Minister for Overseas Development who would have Cabinet rank.
He will also command much all-party support for the strictures which he made on the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and his Department. If it is true, however, that the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations has bungled a number of problems brought to him, and if it is true, as the hon. Member suggested, that the personnel of the Commonwealth Relations Office is amateur and inefficient, this is not necessarily a reason for amalgamating the two Ministries but a reason for getting a new Secretary of State and a new lot of officials at the Commonwealth Relations Office.
The main point of the Plowden Committee's Report which is controversial concerns the question whether we should merge the Commonwealth Relations Office with the Foreign Office. I agree that administrative logic seems to point in that direction. If it is generally

agreed, as seems to be the case, that, on grounds of easier recruitment, easier cross-posting, easier administration and a number of other grounds, we should merge the two overseas services, then at first sight it seems to a tidy mind that the two Ministries should also be merged. On the other hand, we should be very cautious about this kind of logic, for logic has not always been successfully applied to Commonwealth relations. I am not sure where the Commonwealth would go if we all applied too rigid standards of logic to it.
We are in danger on this point of confusing the ends with the means. We must ask ourselves what our objectives are in relation to the Commonwealth. What do we want to do in the way of Commonwealth trade, Commonwealth development, Commonwealth connections, and the Commonwealth Secretariat, to which the hon. Gentleman referred? We must get clear in our minds what we want to achieve and then design the administrative machine to forward our policy. It would be a great mistake, by taking what looks like a tidy administrative decision, to undermine the possibility of building up the unity and importance of the Commonwealth in the modern world.
Hon. Members on this side of the House will broadly agree that, if we believe that the Commonwealth has a great future, if we believe that it is more than a gigantic farce and that the talk about it is more than woolly and cloudy phraseology, which the hon. Gentleman described it as, we must ensure that we have the administration for our Commonwealth relations that they deserve. In spite of merging the two overseas services, we must surely agree that diplomacy in a Commonwealth country and diplomacy in a foreign country are not the same thing. The problems are not identical. Questions of history and of special relationships make a great difference. Above all, there is the point that we wish to increase the strength and the unity of the Commonwealth in a special manner which distinguishes our objectives with many other countries.
Therefore, there is a strong need for maintaining a group of powerful and influential people in London who have a vested interest in the success of the


Commonwealth. One of the first principles of administration is that, if it is desired to make something succeed, one should gather together a group of influential people with a vested interest in its success. Thus, I think that the existence of the Commonwealth Relations Office could have a constructive effect in the long term on our Commonwealth relations.
A strange point made by the hon. Gentleman was that the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations could not, according to his officials, deal with Zanzibar because he liked to deal with one problem at once. What is the consequence of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion—that all the things which the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations cannot deal with should be pushed as an even greater burden on the shoulders of the Foreign Office Ministers, whom the hon. Gentleman assumed are not busy enough? This is very doubtful indeed.

Mr. Berkeley: I should like to make it clear that I envisaged that in an expanded External Affairs Office there would be an increased number of Ministers. I specifically said that I wanted there to be Ministers of State for definite geographical areas. This would lessen the Ministerial burden.

Mr. Mayhew: I shall come later to the question whether very tricky questions such as Zanzibar should be decided at Minister of State level. This is a very important point which must be considered. In any case, the burden already on the Foreign Secretary and, I would say, on the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, is excessive. Whatever faults we may find with the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, none of us complains that he does not work hard or that he does not have heavy responsibilities. Many of us would agree that some of his decisions may have suffered as a result of the work burden. Therefore, it is a very questionable proposition that all this high level decision should go on to the shoulders of the Foreign Secretary who, Heaven knows, is already heavily loaded with decisions.
I cannot believe that it takes the right perspective of Commonwealth relations to suggest that they should be in the hands of a Minister of State just as

some other region of the world or just as some other problem like disarmament. Important as these other regions of the world are, it must be agreed that we have a special policy towards the Commonwealth countries and a special objective. To institute a Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations who—I quote the hon. Gentleman—would deal mainly with protocol and personal contacts would, I believe, depreciate the whole conception of the Commonwealth in a most dangerous fashion.
Why does the hon. Gentleman suppose that a Minister of State will be a proper person to make the personal contacts throughout the Commonwealth? I doubt very much whether Commonwealth Ministers, Foreign Secretaries and Prime Ministers will be content to make their contacts in London with anyone except someone at the top Cabinet level. We shall not keep the burden of work off the top level Cabinet Ministers by appointing a Minister of State to deal with contacts within the Commonwealth.
The policy must be co-ordinated. This is vital. It is a question not whether we can co-ordinate but at what level we want the co-ordination to take place. If the two Ministries are merged, there will be co-ordination at a lower level than there is at present. This stands to reason. At present, such co-ordination as there is often takes place at Cabinet level. In recent years we have noticed failures in co-ordination. If the two Ministries are merged, coordination must take place at a lower level. There are great dangers in this, because any point of contact between the C.R.O. and the Foreign Office by definition involves a conflict between our relations with a Commonwealth country and our relations with a foreign country. These are not problems which should be settled at a low level by officials and brought to Ministers as an agreed policy. They are often much too important for that kind of decision to be taken at that kind of level.
It must be noted also that, if they are taken at the low level, there is a strong probability in a merged service that the Foreign Office view will prevail over the C.R.O. view. It must be borne in mind that the Foreign Office is much stronger in numbers—the hon. Gentleman said that it was also stronger in


talent—than the C.R.O. I ask the hon. Gentleman to imagine some difficult question in which Commonwealth and foreign interests had to be balanced being discussed by officials at a comparatively low level, especially if the officials from the Commonwealth side were of the calibre of which the hon. Gentleman spoke. At every stage it would be the Commonwealth interest which went under. We on this side see considerable difficulties about that.
In my view, these two Departments can co-ordinate as two different Ministries. They live in the same building. The same appalling inefficient building houses both the Foreign Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office. The officials trip over the same coal scuttles and empty milk bottles in the corridors. There is no real reason why when they come together they should not adequately co-ordinate policy, but these arrangements often need to be adjusted at the top level and there is, therefore, a need for a Cabinet Minister specifically involved in Commonwealth relations.
I hope that I have made the point clear. I do not say that a situation will never arise in which it might seem to be in the interests of the Commonwealth to have a single Ministry, but to abolish the Commonwealth Relations Office now, after a successful Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, especially for the kind of reasons advanced by the hon. Gentleman, would seem to be most unwise. It seems that the case of the Plowden Committee is made out for retaining the two Ministries at present.
I turn to some other aspects of the Report. I congratulate the Government on the speed and generosity with which they have carried out the recommendations on foreign service allowances. This was a tremendously important point, particularly in relation to the children of foreign servants overseas. I have often thought with some dread of the possibility of making a study of neurosis and divorce in the families of foreign servants overseas. It is a very human, and indeed administrative, problem. The fact that children will now be able to travel at least twice a year—I am not sure why it

should not be three times a year—overseas to see their parents is a vitally important matter. Also important is the fact that foreign servants can afford, if they wish, to send their children to boarding schools, which is a very practical important point for them.
One of the most interesting parts of the Report was about the sources of recruitment for the Foreign Service. On schools the trend seems to be in the right direction. It is true that 70 per cent. of applicants for the senior branch still come from the public schools, 8 per cent. from direct-grant schools, and 20 per cent. from State schools, but the trend is at least in the right direction, namely, towards a broader area of recruitment.
The universities, on the other hand, are fantastically dominated by Oxbridge from the point of view of recruitment for the Foreign Service. At present, 57 per cent. come from Oxford, 35 per cent. from Cambridge, something over 5 per cent. from other universities, and just over 1 per cent. from no university at all. The Committee state that there is no weighting of the scales by the Civil Service Commission in recruiting methods. It attributes it partly to the fact that the arts are identified with Oxbridge and science with the new universities. I consider that this is a prejudice which, in relation to the Foreign Service, should be broken down. There is no reason why the arts, rather than science, should qualify a modern diplomat for his work. Whether he is dealing with trade, aid, disarmament or anything else, a scientific background today is in some cases indispensable and, I should have thought, equally as valuable as an arts education at a university.
Because of this, I urge the Government to comment on the recommendation of the Plowden Committee that the appointments board should do more to sell the conception of careers in the Foreign Service to the teaching staffs of universities as well as others. There should also be achieved a better bridging system between the executive and administrative class inside the Foreign Service and greater facilities made available for over-age entry.
I must say a word about women, because I married a woman diplomat, one of the first to enter the Diplomatic Service. My wife and I were thereby presented with the choice that either she


should leave her career or I should follow her from place to place with the chance of becoming the husband of one of Her Majesty's Ambassadors. It was a stark choice, one which is bound to be faced by many women diplomats. The Plowden Committee suggested some relaxation of the marriage bar in the Foreign Service, and I would like to know whether the Government propose to take action on the recommendation that women diplomats in this situation should have the chance of opting for home service. Women employed in this sphere tend to be highly talented, highly trained and useful individuals, and I fear that the Government will continue to lose a considerable source of talent if they fail to take a generous line on this recommendation.
I hope that the Minister will comment on the Committee's recommendation about the level of work in overseas missions. My impression is, from having visited a number of these missions, that some are doing a great deal more hard work than others. I fear that work goes on when it is useful but not essential and that work continues to be done on things which were once essential but which are no longer so. I very much like the recommendation that the heads of missions should report annually on the work being done in their missions so that priorities can be laid down in London for staffing and responsibilities.
These are some of the points that come to mind arising out of the Report. I wish to express my congratulations to the Committee on producing a thoroughly readable and well-informed document. I realise that several hon. Members played a part in its production and I hope that the Government will give sympathetic consideration to its recommendations.

6.4 p.m.

Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: I must begin by declaring a personal interest in the subject under discussion, because I was a member of the Plowden Committee. I would also like, at the outset, to pay tribute to Lord Plowden for his extremely able chairmanship of the Committee.
This is not the occasion for a full-scale debate of the Report, which, the whole House will agree, is an important document, because it makes some far reaching recommendations, so I will content my-

self by commenting on what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley) and the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew).
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that better use might have been made earlier of some of the extremely able Colonial Overseas Service officers who, through no fault of their own, found themselves unemployed when the territories which they were serving ceased to be Colonies and became independent Commonwealth countries. He is probably right in saying that in certain quarters there was undue sensitiveness about their employment. One could not, of course, re-employ, for example, district commissioners in the same territories when those territories cease to be Colonies, and became independent Commonwealth countries. Nevertheless, more of these could have been employed in another capacity elsewhere with great benefit.
One of the earliest problems we discussed in the evidence we received on the Plowden Committee was that since, jointly, the Foreign Office and Commonwealth Relations Office now have a responsibility for the whole of Africa, there is a singular shortage of personnel who have any intimate knowledge of the African languages. This is a point which we had very much in mind when we made our recommendations about training in difficult languages for entry to the new Diplomatic Service.
I appreciate the feelings of my hon. Friend when he said that the Committee had not gone far enough in its conclusions. I see the force of his argument that we had not gone the whole hog, as it were, and recommending a single Ministry of External Affairs. I admit, if he wishes, that that was in one sense the automatic and logical conclusion of certain of our recommendations, but that is not quite the whole story.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, East put his finger on the problem when he said that while, logically, we might have gone the whole way and recommended a single Ministry of External Affairs, to have done so might have resulted in misunderstanding. Indeed, it might have been thought that in some way this was a kind of wind-up of Commonwealth interest by Her Majesty's Government,


which certainly would not have been the case. Nevertheless, it could have been misunderstood, and such misunderstanding might have caused unnecessary offence and ill feeling.
That is what I would call one of the psychological points to arise from our recommendations, but there are also certain practical difficulties, to which reference has been made. Our Report was unanimous, I think that we were right, and I defend what we recommended. On this basis the remedy is to do what we suggested, remembering that we recommended that in the first stage we should merge the Commonwealth Relations Office and Foreign Office personnel overseas into a single overseas service. Having made that recommendation, I am sure that—taking this to its logical conclusion—it would be wise to see just how that amalgamation settled down, what sort of unseen problems arose, how to cope with them and so on before going any further. It would be wise, I suggest, to have a longish pause to see how the overseas amalgamation goes and what sort of problems arise before deciding anything further.
It must be remembered, too, that three services are affected, because the trade commissioners come into this. This means that the personnel of all three services will in one form or another be amalgamated into a single overseas service, although the Foreign Office and Commonwealth Relations Office will retain their two separate Departments of State in the United Kingdom. I believe that to have recommended going the whole hog at once would have been impracticable and would have caused a good deal of misunderstanding.
No one would seriously deny that the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations do not have colossal burdens resting on their shoulders. To put the two Departments together under one man seems to me to be very unwise—

Mr. Berkeley: After all, the American Secretary of State is responsible for the whole of the external affairs policy of the United States, and Mr. Gromyko has the same responsibility for the Soviet Union. I cannot see why it should be

beyond the bounds of a British Minister of External Affairs to do the same.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: If I may say so, neither the United States nor the Soviet Union have quite the same historical problem of merging a Colonial Territory into a Commonwealth Territory, with all the very special traditions and techniques needed in dealing with growing Commonwealth countries. Their problem is not quite the same. I am not sure that we can argue this purely on a geographical basis and say that they can all be adequately dealt with by a single Department of State. We have to proceed carefully. I agree that the logic is there, but I think that it would be wise to follow our recommendation to merge the overseas services as a first stage, and then wait quite a considerable time before deciding whether or not to go further.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, East is perfectly right in what he says about allowances. In my view, the increase in the allowances is long overdue. I am very glad that the Government accepted the recommendation about the children's holiday journeys; that in two holidays out of three the children should be able to see their parents is very important. When people in the Foreign Service marry, and go to a distant post, when their children are of school age they have to be sent to a boarding school. They have to be left at school in England, because educational facilities for children of boarding-school age do not exist in Jakarta, Santiago, or Lima. It is a tremendous strain—financial, moral and psychological—if Foreign Service officers and their wives are separated for very long periods from their growing children. There is an additional difficulty if children are ill—it is extremely expensive to fly from the other side of the world to see them.
I do not quite agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about recruitment. He is quite right in saying that there is no discrimination between the redbrick universities and Oxbridge, but the common experience is that it is extremely difficult to get candidates from the redbrick universities to sit for the Foreign Service examinations, and one cannot get entrants from nonexistent candidates. The Service can only choose from those candidates who


offer themselves for selection, and the fact is that at present over 80 per cent. of the candidates offering themselves come from the two older universities.
The Foreign Service must have the best; to assume anything else would be unwise. It is equally true, though controversial, that if we want the best we need a very large proportion of candidates with a good arts degree. There is scope for those with a science degree, but I am not sure that it is not a limited scope. If we want those with a good arts degree, it is unquestionable that the best of them come from Oxford and Cambridge—that is all there is to it.
As a member of the Plowden Committee, I thank the Government for accepting our unanimous Report. We, for our part, are very happy to feel that we have done something to improve the pay, conditions, allowances and general structure of our very important Diplomatic Service, and its function in the future.

6.15 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies (Mr. Nigel Fisher): I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley) for raising today this very important matter of the Plowden Report on our Representational Services Overseas. It is certainly right that the House should debate this Report; it has surprised me that it has not done so before.
The Government very much welcome the Report, and we are very grateful to Lord Plowden and his colleagues for the immense amount of work and thought they put into it, and I am fortunate to have the support and advice today of my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe), who was a member of the Committee.
As the House knows, the Government accept, and intend to implement, the main recommendations of the Report, and we are now making the administrative preparations that are necessary to establish a single, unified Diplomatic Service on 1st January next year. We are also preparing for the merger of the Colonial Office with the Commonwealth Relations Office on 1st July next year, if possible.
Most of the Plowden Committee's recommendations on conditions of service for the Diplomatic Service have already been brought into effect for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Trade Commission Services and, except for some really very minor modifications, the rest, relating to the rather complicated structure of allowances for officers serving overseas, will be introduced as soon as possible.
On one very important aspect my hon. Friend goes much further than Lord Plowden. He asks for the immediate merger, in effect, of the Foreign Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office in the form of a single Ministry of External Affairs, and as everyone who has taken part in this short debate has made this the main theme—and it is the most important aspect—I will come directly to it.
It is argued, as I understand it, in favour of this course that if we have two Cabinet Ministers with two different Departments engaged on external affairs we are likely to have conflicting external policies. I quite understand that argument, and it would be idle to deny that in any Government there is sometimes a different angle or emphasis, as between one Department or Minister and another, on the same subject or about the same part of the world. But, with respect, I think that the argument involves a misunderstanding of our system of government.
To begin with, there are not just two Departments and two Ministers involved—the Ministry of Defence, the Treasury and the Board of Trade all have a very important say in our external policies. Secondly, it is the function and purpose of the Cabinet system of Government to take account of all departmental interests in formulating a single line of external policy. I think that it is conventional not to name any particular Cabinet Committee, but one can say that that is really what Cabinet Committees are for.
Nor is it only a matter of Cabinet structure and of Cabinet Ministers. Officials of all Departments in Whitehall are in constant touch with each other, explaining, arguing and discussing all issues at all levels, and I should think that these contacts are closest of all between the Foreign Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office—which are,


as we have been reminded, housed virtually in the same building.
I do not pretend, and would not dream of doing so, that there are not disadvantages in having two Departments. There are, and we are trying to minimise them all the time. But they are usually exaggerated, and I am sure that they would be outweighed by the other disadvantages of trying to merge the two Departments at the present time. One cannot possibly foresee the future—least of all in politics—and I do not rule the idea out for all time, but it is fair to say that our Commonwealth relationships today are rather different from our relationships with foreign countries—and different in ways that call for special attention in London, where Commonwealth links, in practice, converge.
It would also be difficult, in practice, for one Minister to discharge adequately the duties of Foreign Secretary, Commonwealth Secretary and Colonial Secretary. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) for his support on this and, indeed, on other points. It is exactly the point to which there is the strongest practical objection in this whole argument.
It is within the recollection of the House that my right hon. Friend is subjected to constant criticism from the benches opposite, and not least from the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) because it is said that my right hon. Friend has insufficient time to deal with Commonwealth and Colonial subjects, let alone anything else. I assure the House, and I think that everybody agrees, that whatever criticism they may make of my right hon. Friend no one whom I have ever known who has had experience of the work of the Secretary of State would ever say that he was not one of the most hardworking men one had ever come across.
Both his own and the Foreign Secretary's commitments are often dictated by Commonwealth and international crises, and by combining the two offices we should run a grave risk of losing, by sheer pressure of events, the constant informal, personal contacts at the highest levels which are the essence of modern Commonwealth relations, and, I believe,

one of the most helpful influences in the world today. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster has said that he thinks that the difficulty can be overcome by appointing a large number of Under-Secretaries of State and Ministers of State on a regional basis, but this is how the C.R.O. and the Colonial Office are already organised. We each have a region, and this works well and efficiently.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Oh.

Mr. Fisher: The right hon. Gentleman, from a sitting position, chortles away. I do not know why he objects to that statement. Perhaps I can amplify it.
It works perfectly well and efficiently for some territories—the smaller ones—and for some problems—the less controversial ones, but in the end everyone's problems are very important to him and, in the end, everybody wants to see the boss. There are simply not enough hours in the day for one man to do these three jobs. This is not a starter in practice, in my opinion. I have tried to save my right hon. Friend a certain amount of work in so far as my responsibilities are concerned, but if the problem is important people, rightly, want to see him.
The Foreign Secretary and the Commonwealth and Colonial Secretary must also travel as much as possible. They must know these countries and must be free to visit them in time of crisis and even in times of quiet. In my experience, and I think that everybody with experience of Government would agree, one cannot take out of files important decisions affecting people's lives. However good the Civil Service advice, it is never the same as having been to the country, having experienced the atmosphere and the problems and having talked to people on their own ground.
I do not think that I have heard it seriously advanced today, but it is often said in this context, and it is not a fair argument, that other Commonwealth countries manage very well with one Ministry of External Affairs. I expect they do, but the external and the inter-Commonwealth relations of Canada or Australia, for example, to take the largest, do not compare in extent and


complexity with those of Britain. It can be argued that one could have two Ministers, both in the Cabinet, one to look after the foreign side and one the Commonwealth side in a unified office, but I cannot see it working very well.
Someone would have to be the boss. This is the essential question. I suppose that it would have to be the Foreign Secretary. I do not think that that would be a particularly easy arrangement, or necessarily very acceptable to the Commonwealth. But if no one is the boss—if they are co-equals, joint Secretaries of State and in the Cabinet, we have the same position as we have today. The Prime Minister or the Cabinet have to decide between them if there is a difference of policy.
As the hon. Member for Woolwich, East has said, the truth is that although it may be logical to have one Minister instead of two it is not very practical, and there is no point in a theoretically logical solution if it does not work out well in practice. I was surprised to hear my hon. Friend advance the argument that the new Commonwealth Secretariat could replace and make redundant the Commonwealth Relations Office. If he really believes that, he misunderstands the work and purpose of the C.R.O. A Commonwealth Secretariat will act as the servant of all Commonwealth Governments equally. It will not be a British institution, purveying the policy of the United Kingdom. I am quite sure that that was not at all the concept of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers who proposed it.

Mr. Berkeley: This is exactly the point that I made. I was careful to say that the Commonwealth Relations Office is a British Government Department and that the Commonwealth Secretariat would be an organ of the Commonwealth as a whole and that the abolition of a British Government Department could not affect the future of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Fisher: If my hon. Friend agrees that there are two quite different functions, I do not know why he thinks that the creation of a Commonwealth Secretariat is relevant to the functioning of the Commonwealth Relations Office. The one will act for all Commonwealth Governments, the other is an instrument

of British policy. It is a British Department of State. These two organisations are quite different in their purpose and function.
It is true that the C.R.O. has hitherto organised things like the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference and has always tried to help other Commonwealth members by supplying them with factual information, especially to those countries which have fewer diplomatic resources than we have. But these are comparatively minor functions of the C.R.O. Its main responsibility has always been to ensure that Britain's policies are understood and, where possible, supported by other Commonwealth Governments, that British interests in Commonwealth countries are safeguarded, and that British policy takes account of Commonwealth relations. Therefore, the functions of the Secretariat and the C.R.O. are quite different and distinct, one acting for all Commonwealth Governments, the other acting for the British Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster also stressed the importance of some aspects of recruiting, and having had to disagree with him on some matters I am glad to say that I agree with him that these are important. I know that he has taken great interest in recruitment to the Commonwealth service from the Colonial service over a considerable period. We welcome such recruitment though doubts have been expressed about employing former Colonial officers in new Commonwealth countries where people may be suspicious of neocolonialism. That factor can be exaggerated, but it is an aspect which we should take into account.
The real answer is that most of the extra recruitment to the Commonwealth service since 1957 has come from the Colonial service. Including officers employed on temporary service, rather more than a quarter of the administrative staff in the Commonwealth Service is drawn from the Colonial Service, and their numbers will be increased shortly. This is much the largest single source of recruitment to the Commonwealth Service.
My hon. Friend raised the question of examinations for the overseas service. It is true that hitherto candidates for the Civil Service have normally had to take a written examination, but, in the new


Diplomatic Service, Commonwealth candidates have no longer to take a written examination. Lest my hon. Friend should think that I was unfriendly in the earlier part of my speech, I should now like to pay tribute to him. This important change is at least partly due to the views which he so forcibly expressed two years ago, and with which I had at the time, and still have, great sympathy. Instead of the written examination, the examinations now consist of 2½-day tests of initiative, intelligence, administrative capacity, judgment and character and, of course, they include personal interviews. They are also influenced by the confidential reports on candidates arising from their earlier Commonwealth or Colonial careers.
This aspect of recruitment is in the hands of an independent Civil Service Commission, and I am sure that that is right. Different Departments cannot adopt their own standards of recruitment in isolation from one another in the case of established civil servants. We can take on temporary overseas civil servants if we need them—people who have not passed the tests—and we have done so, but they cannot become established civil servants with assured permanent employment and full pension rights, because to become established, candidates must be able to attain as high a general standard as their colleagues in other Departments, and this, I think, broadly speaking is right. I hope that the House will agree that the acceptance of this principle, coupled with the more flexible approach which I have tried to describe, is the correct way round the difficulty which my hon. Friend has mentioned.
My hon. Friend mentioned development aid which, he suggested, should be administered by a single Ministry, and he put forward his interesting suggestion about the organisation of this work in the context of his proposal for a single Ministry of External Affairs. Suggestions for the concentration of responsibility both for our technical assistance and our capital aid programme in one agency have often been made before independently of the question of creating a single Ministry of External Affairs. I hope that my hon. Friend will not think that I am dodging the issue, but I must refer him to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to a Question by the hon.

Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), last month. I know that my hon. Friend will not expect a junior Minister, speaking on the Consolidated Fund Bill, to enter into the sphere of Cabinet reconstruction, which properly concerns my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
The next point my hon. Friend made related to retirement benefits for overseas service officers. He may think it wrong, but we have been quite consistent. These officers have throughout their careers been employed by one overseas Government or another and never by the British Government. That may have been a mistake, but it is the fact. The terms of service of these overseas Governments include the provision of pensions, and pensions, therefore, have throughout been the responsibility of those overseas Governments. The British Government, therefore, have not transferred their responsibilities to overseas Governments, as I think my hon. Friend implied. They have simply looked to those Governments to discharge the obligations that they already have.
The public officers agreements which are negotiated when the overseas territories become independent do not provide any fresh obligation on the part of the overseas territories, but simply provide for the continuation of their existing obligations. Through the O.S.A.S. agreements the British Government contribute substantially towards the cost of retirement benefits of overseas officers but we see no justification for transferring to the British taxpayer a recurring pensions bill which would amount to £10½ million a year, especially as in the case of some independent territories this would not be necessary.
We help the poor ones already, not only in general but in this particular respect, through the O.S.A.S. arrangements, but in a matter of principle like this we cannot easily differentiate between the richer and the poorer, because it is also always a matter of degree and would lead to endless argument and controversy in the Commonwealth, which would, in itself, be bad for Commonwealth relations. We take into account the financial needs of individual countries in the aid that we give them in this and other respects.
So far as diplomatic experience in the C.R.O. is concerned, I must remind my hon. Friend that many members of the Commonwealth Service have spent all their careers in diplomatic work, both


those who originally joined the old Dominions Office and those who have been recruited directly into the Commonwealth service since its formation. It is equally true—I concede my hon. Friend's argument—that many of them have less experience, in relation to their age, than those in the Foreign Service, but this is the reverse side of my hon. Friend's advocacy of the need to make use of the experience of the overseas civil servants employed by my office. I do not think he can have it both ways. A young and growing service, the Commonwealth Service, has taken in former members of non-diplomatic services like the Overseas Civil Service, the Indian Civil Service, the Colonial Office and other Departments of the home Civil Service, too. They are all knit together into one service, and it seems to me to be quite a healthy line of development.
As for my hon. Friend's outburst—I cannot describe it as anything else—about Zanzibar earlier this year, and his quotation of an apparently jocular remark by a C.R.O. official, in a private conversation, to the effect that the Secretary of State liked to deal with only one problem at a time and that he already had Cyprus, I do not think my hon. Friend should quote publicly a private conversation of this kind. In any case, he must know that it is totally untrue. At any rate, I know that it is untrue.
One only has to take this last couple of months, when the Secretary of State has had on his plate at one and the same time the Aden and South Arabian Conference, the Malta Conference, the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, all very difficult and time-taking indeed, quite apart from British Guiana, Southern Rhodesia, Cyprus and all the other problems. [An HON. MEMBER: "Far too many."] I agree that there is much more in the argument that there is too much for the Secretary of State to deal with—which supports my argument that he should not also be Foreign Secretary at one and the same time—than there is in the criticism of my hon. Friend.
I should now like to turn to the point raised by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East concerning recruitment, which is very important. The Plowden Committee went thoroughly into this question. It was particularly anxious to

establish whether recruitment is sufficiently widely based, and it had no hesitation in stating that there was no bias in favour of what one might call Oxbridge. At the same time, the Committee made recommendations designed to widen the basis of recruitment still further. I quite agree with the hon. Member's own wish to develop closer contacts with university teaching staffs generally—it is important—and to encourage university graduates to compete for entry into the executive branch of the service as well as the administrative branch.
On the question of public school bias, I should point out that the Oxford and Cambridge entry has been radically widened in recent years to include students of every possible social origin on a basis of merit and ability. Although in the 10 years from 1952 to 1962 the proportion of successful non-Oxbridge candidates for the Commonwealth Service was about one in eight, the extraordinary thing is that the proportion of successful candidates from State and State-aided schools was one in three—very much better.
As to women diplomats, I had not realised that the hon. Gentleman had such a personal interest. We accept in full the recommendation of the Plowden Committee on this matter. The point will be covered in the manner recommended by the Committee and in the new regulations for the Diplomatic Service which are now being drafted.
The first review of the work load in missions overseas on the lines recommended by the Plowden Committee, I believe in paragraph 204 of their Report, is now in progress. It is intended that a further review should take place in the diplomatic Service on similar lines.
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman and to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor for their support over the matter of children's education and travel allowances. In the old days, when I used to go round the Commonwealth, I heard, as others did, the most pathetic cris-de-coeur. They were not complaints or criticisms, but people did not see their children from one year to the next because they could not afford to travel, and wives used to have either to come and see their children in Britain or remain with their husbands overseas, being


unable to go freely from one to the other because of the fares. It was a very serious matter, and I fully agree, as do the Government, with the Plowden improvements, which will be a great help and easement to many in our overseas service.
In conclusion, I return once again to the basic justification, as I see it for separate Departments and for separate Secretaries of State, as this has been the main theme of our short debate. The Commonwealth association is different from our relationship with foreign countries. Foreign countries may be friends and allies, but they are not members of the family. I believe that there is a special relationship within the Commonwealth, and it is this relationship, difficult though it may be to define which holds the Commonwealth together. If we treat Commonwealth countries as foreign countries, we shall, in my view go far towards making them into foreign countries, which would be the very last thing I should want to see happen.
If I may finish on a slightly personal note, in this House and in politics generally, the Commonwealth has always been my main interest, and I have always wanted, in a small way, to try to do what I could for the Commonwealth idea in theory and in practice. This is why I was absolutely overjoyed when the recent Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference came out so well. I know that this is not a party point and that hon. Members opposite were just as pleased. It was a risk to have held it at all, but it was more than justified in the result.
I believe, and have always believed, that, just as the Empire had a great past, the Commonwealth has a great future. It is a really remarkable thing, this multi-racial association of independent English-speaking States, often critical of each other and of us yet held together by a common heritage and institution, by—let us face it—mutual self-interest but also by their own pride in and affection for the association. Like many hon. Members on both sides, including, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster, I am myself genuinely "colour-blind" and I believe, quite simply, in the brotherhood of man. The Commonwealth is a reflection of that

belief and an example of what it can mean in the world. We should be thankful that it exists and we should be determined to preserve it.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA

6.42 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: After the very interesting debate to which we have just listened, I wish to raise another subject which is to some extent connected with it, the subject of Southern Rhodesia. If we discuss, as we have just been doing, how to strengthen Commonwealth links rather than weaken them, if we believe, as the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies and Commonwealth Relations plainly showed in his speech that he passionately believes that the Commonwealth has a future, we must face the problem of Southern Rhodesia and we must solve it. If we fail to face our responsibilities, we may destroy the new strength and power of the Commonwealth in which we have all rejoiced this afternoon.
We have just had a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference. As the Under-Secretary of State said, we all rejoice that it was successful, that it went off so harmoniously, but I am sure that the House will unanimously agree that Southern Rhodesia was the one subject on which we feared that the Conference might founder. It did not founder, but it did not founder because of certain understandings which were reached, understandings, for instance, as to what our own Government and our own Prime Minister would do following the conference. We have not yet had a debate on the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, and this is our first opportunity to discuss certain aspects of it. It would be quite wrong for the House to disperse for the Recess without giving the Government an opportunity to tell us frankly and clearly what they propose to do on the question of Southern Rhodesia in fulfilment of the understanding which undoubtedly was reached.
We all rejoice that the Conference was successful. We have been invited by hon. Members opposite to attribute its success solely and exclusively to the British Prime Minister. Anxious as always to turn every opportunity to their electoral advantage, hon. Members opposite have


hastened to put down a Motion congratulating the Prime Minister on his wonderful conduct of the conference, and, only a short time ago, in another place, Lord Carrington was repeating the same theme in a debate somewhat similar to this, saying that, of course, we must pay great tribute to the British Prime Minister, who set the tone of the whole conference.
We can well understand why hon. Members are rushing to make this expression of adulation of the Prime Minister on the Commonwealth issue. Understandably, they are anxious because recent Conservative Administrations have not been exactly characterised by enthusiasm for the strengthening of Commonwealth links. There was the unhappy business of the negotiations for entering the Common Market. That may be past history, but the continuing failure of the Government to promote Commonwealth trade, as exemplified by the recent announcement on the setting up of an Export Council, which is not to cover the Commonwealth, quite apart from other things, has tended to tarnish the Government with the reputation for not really caring very much about the Commonwealth. Hon. Members opposite, therefore, approached the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference as they approach everything nowadays, with the sole idea of using it to help restore their tarnished electoral image on Commonwealth matters.
The Prime Minister was determined at all costs to avoid the conference breaking up in disagreement on any point. To do this, he had to surrender a principle which he had been fighting to defend for months past, namely, the principle that Southern Rhodesia's internal affairs are a matter for her alone. I have no doubt that he did it reluctantly, but he had no choice because, faced by his fellow Prime Ministers at the conference, he had to admit that the present situation in Southern Rhodesia, with its racially discriminatory laws, with its administration by a reactionary white minority which has deliberately kept the overwhelming majority of Africans disfranchised, was a direct affront to everything for which the Commonwealth stands. The alteration of the situation was legitimately

the concern of all those who believe in the strengthening of the Commonwealth, and the Prime Minister agreed, therefore, much to the chagrin of Mr. Ian Smith, to the question of Southern Rhodesia being placed on the agenda of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.
During the discussions, it was made quite clear by the other Commonwealth Prime Ministers, not only the African and Asian Prime Ministers but also the Prime Ministers of white Dominions like Canada, that they believed that, if the present situation in Southern Rhodesia was allowed to continue unchecked, irremediable damage might be done to the Commonwealth.
As we know, in the event, they produced a communiqué which included an agreed statement on Southern Rhodesia. We have been asked to congratulate the British Prime Minister on this, but I think that any objective observer would agree that the overwhelming credit must go to the African and Asian Commonwealth Prime Ministers, who showed remarkable restraint and remarkable willingness not to rock the boat at a crucial moment. They made a genuine attempt to understand the difficulties inherent in the situation.
The conference communiqué stressed two points on Southern Rhodesia. On the one hand, the British Prime Minister maintained that the granting of independence to Southern Rhodesia was a matter for the British Government. But, on the other hand, he promised to consider carefully the views expressed by the other Commonwealth Prime Ministers, which included, in particular, the suggestion that a constitutional conference should be called immediately which the leaders of all parties in Southern Rhodesia should be free to attend, the object being
to seek agreement on the steps by which Southern Rhodesia might proceed to independence within the Commonwealth at the earliest practicable time on the basis of majority rule.
They added an appeal to the Southern Rhodesian Government to release all political prisoners so as to enable the African leaders to attend such a constitutional conference, because most of them have been rounded up, arrested or restricted in some way.
It is perfectly obvious from all the comments which we have read in the Press about these discussions that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers would not have been as willing to agree to the first proposition—namely, that the responsibility for action lay with Britain—if they had not been given the Prime Minister's assurance that in carrying out his responsibility for dealing with the question of Southern Rhodesia he would bear their strongly expressed views in mind.
The Times put it even more specifically. On 17th July, it said:
Presumably African leaders would not have been so publicly optimistic at the publication of a communiqué which so studiously avoided commitments had they not been given reason to believe that the British Government were going to take some initiative and that Mr. Smith was likely to accept the invitation.
That last sentence is extremely interesting. We all know that The Times has rather special relationships with the Government Front Bench and has rather good access to official sources of information. Here we have a statement by a correspondent of The Times to the effect that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers had been led to believe that Britain were to take some initiative and that Mr. Ian Smith would respond.
This was merely a reporter's comment, but this suggestion was strongly reinforced by the comments of the conference which were made after it by some of the Prime Ministers who were there. President Nyerere of Tanganyika, as reported in The Times, said that
there had been no difference of opinion whether there should be a constitutional conference for Southern Rhodesia, but Britain had questioned the right of other members to tell her to call one. Since Britain had agreed to give careful consideration to the views expressed, 'we must expect such a conference to be called'".
Mr. Kenyatta of Kenya, as reported in the same report in The Times of 16th July said, through a spokesman, that
he was satisfied with the conclusions reached on Southern Rhodesia. He understood there would be a conference at which all parties in Southern Rhodesia would be represented.
Two or three days later, in Cairo, President Nyerere returned to this theme. Hon. Members will remember that the African and Asian members of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference went straight on from there to a confer-

ence on African unity in Cairo where they had to answer to their fellow Africans for what they had done on behalf of racial equality in Southern Rhodesia. President Nyerere said:
It was fine. We had an excellent Prime Ministers' Conference. We reached agreement on a communiqué on certain understandings";
and he added these words:
We left London confident that action would be taken".
Quite clearly, whatever we do about merging the Commonwealth Relations Office with the Foreign Office, or about anything else on the administrative side, if this trust in Britain's word by the other Commonwealth Prime Ministers at the conference were to be betrayed, cynicism would be bred which would rot the very roots of the Commonwealth.
Yet what has been done? It was said only this afternoon in another place that the Prime Minister, from the chair had set the tone of the conference. This was the tone of the conference as understood by the other Prime Ministers. But what did our own Prime Minister say? In his comments to the Press immediately the conference concluded, he struck a very different note. The Times, reporting on the same day, quoted the Prime Minister as follows:
Sir Alec … emphasised that the handling of the Southern Rhodesian question remained a matter exclusively for the British Government to decide, nor did it seem at all likely that a conference would now be held. 'I have not had the opportunity', he said, 'to meet Mr. Smith or discuss the form of a conference. I must do this before I decide what form a conference should take, if any'".
I remind the House of the words of President Nyerere:
We left London confident that action would be taken",
and of the words of Mr. Kenyatta, to the effect that it was understood by all of them that a constitutional conference would be called.
It is true that the Prime Minister has gone through the motion of inviting Mr. Ian Smith to London for talks. Has he had an answer yet? We have asked Question after Question about this in the House. Apparently, Mr. Smith has not awarded the Prime Minister the courtesy even of an acknowledgment, but he answered him in a public speech in Southern Rhodesia a very short time after the conference ended. He poured


scorn on the communiqué. He said, "I brush it aside. I ignore them. They have no right to interfere".
The effect of these two facts taken together—the statements of our own Prime Minister at his Press conference and the arrogant response of Mr. Ian Smith—is bound to lead to the impression that the British Prime Minister will betray the hopes of all those who collaborated with him in reaching an agreed statement on Southern Rhodesia. Apparently, the Prime Minister is sitting back waiting for evermore until Mr. Ian Smith decides whether to reply to the invitation. The Prime Minister is drifting; he is doing nothing.
The effect of the response of our own Prime Minister can only be to encourage the white extremists in Southern Rhodesia to believe that they can go ahead and defy the British Government with impunity. It must lend tremendous weight to the propaganda which Mr. Ian Smith is now putting out in Southern Rhodesia to the effect that, "We could unilaterally declare independence and nothing much would happen. It would be a nine-day wonder. It would have no economic ill consequences and no serious international consequences".
I should think that every hon. Member in this House this afternoon has listened on these premises to the pleas of Sir Edgar Whitehead to the effect that Mr. Ian Smith is saying this to the Europeans in Southern Rhodesia and that many of them believe him, because there is no reason to do otherwise. It may well be that by drifting in this way, the British Prime Minister is content to leave the situation so that Mr. Ian Smith can take his unilateral action when we are all preoccupied with a General Election, so that he can catch us on the hop. This has been suggested as one of the things that Mr. Smith may have in mind.
Not least, our failure to take up the spirit of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' communiqué must be breeding tremendous cycnicism among the Africans in Southern Rhodesia. What must they be feeling as the net closes in on them and as hope dies that any help will be brought to them from outside? What else can they feel but the sentiments which were expressed the other day by the Rev.

Sithole, one of their political leaders, when he said:
If Africans failed to achieve their ends by non-violence, then violence becomes the only hope for the majority of the people.
That is merely a simple statement of the obvious. What happened, however, was that he was immediately arrested by Mr. Ian Smith's Government—another political leader put in gaol or under restriction orders so that he could not continue to agitate for proper constitutional change, leaving his followers with no hope but desperate expedients.
We know that already provocative, repressive measures have been piled one on top of the other by the Southern Rhodesian Government. In March this year, harsh amendments were introduced to the Law and Order Act, under which certain penalties were made mandatory for certain offences, under which for example, a person can get two years in gaol and six cuts of the cane for throwing a stone. This is happening in the heart of the multi-racial Commonwealth which we have all been boasting about for the last two or three hours. It is, therefore, impossible for this House to disperse for the next two months, which can be vital in the situation in Southern Rhodesia, and leave it at that with nothing said or done by the British Government.
The Spectator this week got it about right in its leading article. I do not know whether I see there the hand of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod). I should not be surprised. The right hon. Member had to teach some of his hon. Friends opposite many facts of life about the colonial situation and how to deal with it. That is why he was not particularly popular with certain hon. Members opposite. But, my heavens, the British Government's policy now shows the lack of his wise counsels.
This is what the Spectator said:
It is now necessary to warn against the easy assumption that all Britain need do is to sit back and wait until the 1961 Constitution grinds out an African majority and in the meantime, by multiplying economic aid hasten the process. It cannot be stated too plainly that in 1964 aid is no substitute for political freedom … It would be fatal for Britain to encourage Whitehead, Welensky et al to believe that the 1961 Constitution can last. That way bloodshed lies.


In the same issue of the Spectator, there was a fascinating article by a Mr. Leo Baron of Bulawayo, working out the arithmetic of African advance under the 1961 Constitution. As the House knows, out of a Parliament in Southern Rhodesia of 65 members, only 15 are elected on the B roll, which can bring African members into Parliament, and 50 are elected on the A roll.
Mr. Baron estimates that even on the most generous calculation of the results of the existing qualifications for the franchise, only 6,000 Africans could qualify at the moment for the A roll. To get a minimum majority in the House, they would have to win 18 seats on the A roll. To do this, Mr. Baron calculates, 65,000 Africans would have to qualify for the A roll. He points out that even at a fantastically improbable rate of increase in the economic expansion of Southern Rhodesia of 10 per cent. per annum, it would take 25 years for 65,000 Africans to qualify for the A roll.
Does any hon. Member imagine that we or anybody can sit back for another 25 years, in the heart of our multiracial Commonwealth, and allow to persist in Southern Rhodesia a Government which denies the franchise to the overwhelming majority of the people, which operates a Land Apportionment Act which gives half the area of the land to less than 8 per cent. of the population, half the land to the exclusive use of the Europeans, who number merely 210,000 against 3 million Africans? Can we continue to do that and talk of a multi-racial Commonwealth? Does anybody in the House think that the other Commonwealth Prime Ministers would allow us to do it? They would break up the Commonwealth first. They would not be allowed by their own people to stay in it.
I beg the House, encouraged as we all are by the outcome of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, not to forget that that happy outcome was bought at the price that the British Prime Minister led his colleagues to believe that he intended to take steps to alter this situation.
Certainly, I am fully aware of the difficulties. We all are. Not one of us in the House this afternoon wants to say a word that would encourage

violence or make a peaceful transition to majority rule more difficult. It should not, however, be forgotten that that is the objective which has been set out in the communiqué—the steady organised transfer to a system of majority rule. I repeat that to drift is merely to encourage violence and, as against violence, more repression and, as against more repression, more bitterness and more division between the races, making a peaceful transfer of power increasingly impossible.
The very least that the British Government can do is to appeal to the people of Southern Rhodesia over the head of Mr. Ian Smith. By appealing to the people of Southern Rhodesia, I mean ail the people of Southern Rhodesia, the Europeans as well as the Africans, because the Europeans stand to lose most. Is it not time we started to point it out to them and to point out that they are merely bringing nearer the day of reckoning—and it will be a very dreadful reckoning, indeed. We should tell them, "In our view, the time for constitutional change is long overdue. This is the view of Britain, the mother country of the Commonwealth. But we will help you to negotiate this difficult change. We will give you an honourable package deal. We will give you economic help and, by heavens, you need it, Southern Rhodesia!"
Do not forget that at this moment there is a debate going on in the Southern Rhodesia Parliament in which Sir Edgar Whitehead is moving a Motion of no confidence. In a day or two they will have to introduce a budget which will show a current deficit of over £5 million. Do not forget that Mr. Ian Smith has been to South Africa and made his overtures to Dr. Verwoerd for the South African Government to bail Southern Rhodesia out economically, and he has been turned down. Do not forget that the present situation in Southern Rhodesia is bound systematically to undermine the confidence of external investors.
It is the Europeans in Southern Rhodesia who have as much to lose by this ostrich-like attitude as anybody else. We could tell them, "If you will respond to this and send your representatives to London, and release your African political leaders from gaol and let them come, too, we, the Commonwealth, will step in and negotiate adequate safeguards for minority


rights and help Southern Rhodesia in the most constructive way we can."
Finally, the very least that the British Government can do is to warn the people of Southern Rhodesia publicly and sternly of the full consequences that would flow from a unilateral declaration of independence. This has not been done. I have no doubt that the British Government have privately told Mr. Ian Smith, "If you declared independence unilaterally, we should not be able to recognise your Government." But Sir Edgar Whitehead has complained to us that this has not been said to the people of Southern Rhodesia, and if Mr. Ian Smith is not passing that warning on, the people there have not been told, as they should be, that not only would such a Government be illegal and outside the Commonwealth and the United Nations but it would be outside all the economic organisations which are so essential for Southern Rhodesia's economic survival. It would be outside G.A.T.T. It would also be outside Commonwealth preferences. This needs saying, because when South Africa was turned out of the Commonwealth, Her Majesty's Government did not withdraw the Commonwealth preferences. Can we be surprised that Mr. Ian Smith is able to tell his people that he, too, would get the velvet glove—the harsh word, but the velvet glove?
These things must be done without any further delay. Let us do them in the name of friendship for all the people of Southern Rhodesia. Let us do this out of a hatred of violence and a desire to avoid it. Let us do it out of a genuine belief in a multi-racial Commonwealth and the rôle that it must play in solving the problem of Southern Rhodesia. Let us do it because our Prime Minister promised the other Commonwealth Prime Ministers that something like that was what he was going to do. That is why they signed that communiqué. My heavens, if they find that this was merely another cynical Conservative electioneering trick, Her Majesty's Government will have succeeded in destroying our great Commonwealth!

7.14 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: The speech that we have just heard from the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) is one of those speeches which must be profoundly dis-

couraging to every one of the British race who lives in Africa, who must come to regard certain hon. Members opposite as the worst enemies of the British settler in that continent. It was one of those speeches which are filled with hate of the white man in the Commonwealth countries of that continent. How much happier one would feel if one heard equal advocacy, with equal vigour, of good causes when violence is used by black people against white people in Africa, when dreadful atrocities take place, as they have been taking place recently, for example, in South Africa, and when alt the practices and laws of settled life are set aside for political purposes.
The hon. Lady made a reference, which was more than exculpatory, to a Mr. Sithole, who appears to have said that if he and his friends could not get what they wanted quietly they would get it violently. She seemed to think that the Government of Southern Rhodesia were in some way to blame for putting him in prison for saying so. But if someone in Britain were to say that he was prepared to use violence against the Government established by law, he, too, might find himself dealt with in that sort of way.
The hon. Lady spoke with something like horror of the fact that people could be sent to prison, and, indeed, that a form of corporal punishment could be used against them, for throwing stones. She seemed to think that this was a terrible thing in what she called a multiracial Commonwealth. I cannot see the relevance of the multi-racial character of the Commonwealth to the legality or illegality of throwing stones at people or motor cars. It seems to me to be the kind of conduct which ought to be discouraged in any community whether it is homogeneous or heterogeneous in its character.
It is easy to dress a thing like that up in a debate in the House of Commons and make it sound awful. But the hon. Lady may be surprised to learn—perhaps not, since I see that she has a distinguished lawyer, the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot), sitting beside her—that the throwing of stones at people or motor cars is a criminal offence in this country, and that in certain circumstances it


could be quite a serious criminal offence. If, as I have read is the case—

Mrs. Castle: The hon. Gentleman really does not know what is going on in Southern Rhodesia. His mind is closed. If he did know what is going on there he would realise that the important thing about the amendment to the law and order legislation is that these punishments are mandatory. Therefore, the circumstances cannot be taken into account. Of course there can be certain cases in which the throwing of stones is a very dangerous activity, but there can be others in which it is merely an expression of frustration which has led to no harm, but under the present law there is no choice and the penalty must be imposed.

Mr. Bell: I was just coming on to what is going on in Southern Rhodesia. I may even have been there more recently than the hon. Lady. As I understand the position, it is that the throwing of stones in Southern Rhodesia has recently become a serious problem. According to the Government of that country, who are, after all, the official body to which one must turn for information, the prevalence of throwing stones at people with whom one disagrees has grown so sharply in recent months that special measures must be taken to discourage it. There is, again, nothing entirely incompatible with English law in taking specially strict action of that kind for the repression of a practice which has for the time being become a menace to public order. I am certainly no friend of minimum punishments and I never have been. I have often opposed such proposals from Front Benches constituted by either party in this House. The hon. Lady is not on very strong ground there.
We are reaching a somewhat unhappy stage in the question of Southern Rhodesia. This is one of the countries in Africa which have been most successful in its history. It has had a long history of internal self-government—a history which has been almost entirely happy. The relations between the people of different colours and racial origins have been remarkably peaceful and harmonious. The rule of law has prevailed to a remarkable extent throughout

all these years from 1923. The law enforcement activities of the police and, on those rare occasions when they have had to be used, of the armed forces, have often excited the praise of quite impartial and sometimes, one would have expected, hostile observers.

Mr. Dingle Foot: Will the hon. Gentleman also say why Southern Rhodesia is the only territory in the Commonwealth whose Chief Justice thought it necessary to resign office because he regarded the legislation then being passed as a complete negation of the rule of law?

Mr. Bell: The hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) has in a way given a very valuable point to Southern Rhodesia. The point is that it is the sort of country where that kind of thing could take place for quite slight causes.

Mr. D. Foot: Slight?

Mr. Bell: Yes, indeed—very slight. Let me mention Ghana. Laws of a far more oppressive character have been passed in Ghana and the same kind of revulsion among public servants would not there take the form of resignation. Let us remember that the contrary has happened with the judiciary of Ghana. Members of that judiciary perhaps would have been wise to have protested earlier and to have had the merit, as did the Southern Rhodesian Chief Justice, of resigning. Instead, they were disgracefully dismissed in the most scandalous circumstances. I repeat that Southern Rhodesia, judged by the standard of any other African country, has a most wonderful record of moderation, of democratic Government and of quiet and peaceful progress.

Mr. R. T. Paget: rose—

Mr. Bell: I suppose that there is no reason, on this Bill, why I should not give way, but I am doing so rather a lot.

Mr. Paget: All I wish to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman—who is, after all, one of Her Majesty's Counsel—

Mr. Bell: No.

Mr. Paget: I am sorry, I thought that the hon. Gentleman was. Is he really


suggesting that Ghana should be our standard in a Colony or member of the Commonwealth for which we are responsible?

Mr. Bell: No. I only mentioned Ghana in response to an intervention by the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich, who raised a particular point about the resignation of the Chief Justice of Southern Rhodesia.
The point I was making in answer to the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn was much broader. It was the legitimate point that, judging by the standard of any African State, Southern Rhodesia has had a happy, democratic and progressive history in the last 40 years. I do not think that anyone could deny that. There has been less racial discord there than in almost any other part of Africa.
I would go so far as to say—and I think that I am right in putting this as I do—that, until the institution of federation, nobody had ever heard about Southern Rhodesia in the context of this trouble between the races in Africa. Broadly speaking, that is the case. If I am right in that, then it is a sad development that Southern Rhodesia, which was making such excellent progress, should, not from something that has happened inside it but because of rising tempers and feelings outside, have been thrown into the cockpit of a very acrimonious controversy about constitutional development. That is one of the saddest things that has happened in Africa in very many years.
I believe that the 1961 Constitution, about which the hon. Lady had nothing kind to say, is an admirable constitution. The United Kingdom asked Southern Rhodesia to accept it. We had no right to impose any constitution and did not impose one. Southern Rhodesia is a self-governing country and the matter was one of negotiation. But the Constitution, when it is changed, must, like the Constitution of Canada, be changed by Statute of the Imperial Parliament, and, therefore, of course, we tend to come into these discussions.
The present Constitution of Southern Rhodesia, which was strongly commended by the British Government, was also commended in this House. It was freely agreed to by the representatives of the

African population including, I think, although I cannot vouch for this, Mr. Sithole. Certainly it was accepted by Mr. Nkomo.
The great tragedy is that after it was agreed to on all sides, after it was brought into operation by an Act of the British Parliament, pressures, very largely from outside—and, I must say with regret, very largely from this country—persuaded African leaders to start to boycott the very Constitution to which they had themselves agreed.
When people now point to the number of Africans registered as electors on the electoral roll in Southern Rhodesia, one must bear in mind that the reason why the number is small is not that the number qualified is so small but that many of the African leaders appealed to their African compatriots not to register as electors but to boycott the Constitution.

Mrs. Castle: rose—

Mr. Bell: With respect, I think that I have given away so often that it is beginning to encroach upon the progress of the debate. There are other debates after this one. I did not interrupt the hon. Lady, although I disagreed with almost every sentence she uttered.
It is a pit that the two hon. Members who wrote the letter to The Times which was published yesterday do not seem to have taken account of the fact that the present state of the electoral register is based upon the boycotting of the Constitution by the African leaders. I think that we are in grave danger here of doing great injustice to our British compatriots, to British Southern Rhodesians, to the white settlers. We are in danger of doing that because we can so easily become the prisoners of glib phrases repeated time and time again by the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn and those who think like her. After all, what the hon. Lady was really suggesting today—and it would seem an enormity to all of us if we had not heard it so often—was that there should be rapid progress in widening the franchise in Southern Rhodesia, and—although she did not say it this evening, others who think like her have said it, progress towards universal adult suffrage—one person, one vote. That is what is being proposed and I have seen


it proposed by many people, including, of course, some Commonwealth Prime Ministers.
This does not strike people as absurd because they have heard it said so often, but Southern Rhodesia is a country which was unknown to Western civilisation until the 1890s, almost within the parliamentary lifetime of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill). Until then, it was an unknown country in Africa to which Western civilisation had not penetrated.
In this country we started our representative Parliamentary institutions somewhere about the middle of the 13th century and we got through to one vote for one adult in 1951, just 700 years later as the result of a long, arduous and chequered constitutional progress. But that progress took the form of a constant widening of the area of education and economic status so that power was gradually spread over an ever wider base.
I am not for a moment suggesting that in the middle of the twentieth century one should ask Africans to wait for centuries for universal adult suffrage. For instance, I recognise that when we are dealing with a country in Africa whose population is almost wholly African, with a country which is homogeneous, even though it may have white settlers, some even settlers in the sense that they remain there and do not regard themselves as expatriates, then, especially when one is driven by world events, one may say, even against one's better judgment, "Let us give universal adult suffrage to these people even though they are not ready for it, because in current circumstances it seems to be the only way in which to deal with the political pressures which have been generated in Africa, and let them make their mistakes and learn from them, for that in the end may be the quickest way of their becoming politically mature".
But can one adopt that sort of solution in the case of a country like Southern Rhodesia, which has a quarter of a million British families settled there many for two and, in a few cases, three generations and who regard themselves as Rhodesians? Can we just throw the problem at them like that and subject

them to an African majority, doing so in the only way in which that can be done in Southern Rhodesia, which is by lowering the qualification for the franchise to vanishing point?
Southern Rhodesia is a country in which the present Constitution does not take account of the different races who live in the country. There is no question of Africans being disqualified from voting because they are Africans. It is an educational and property qualification. We enlarged our franchise primarily through property qualifications. I do not think that we ever had an educational qualification, but that is a sensible thing to have in the twentieth century. Any African who measures up to the qualification, goes on the roll. It has nothing to do with his being an African.
Surely this is just what we want. The way to build up a good multi-racial society in the middle of Africa is to have a sensible qualification for the responsibility of a vote and not to bother about race. I know that there are two rolls and so on, but what I am saying is broadly true. This is a society whose constitution is not based on its races. They are treated as Rhodesians.
The only way in which to bring about what the hon. Lady was advocating is to lower what is now thought to be the proper minimum qualification for exercising a vote. Nobody would regard it as extravagant to suggest that there should not be universal adult suffrage immediately, or very quickly, in Southern Rhodesia when civilisation reached that country only within the lifetime of people now alive if it had not been said so often. People's judgment would not have become so mesmerised about it. It is quite different when we are dealing with West African territories, which have been in contact with Britain for very much longer, places like Sierra Leone. East Africa is not in that position.

Mrs. Castle: Northern Rhodesia?

Mr. Bell: Northern Rhodesia has been in that situation for a little less time than Southern Rhodesia. It came under the British Crown in about 1897; but Northern Rhodesia is different in that it does not have a large, established European population. It can be said


to Northern Rhodesia, as we have said, "Take your full franchise; make your mistakes and learn in that way". I am sure that it will. I have great confidence in Mr. Kaunda and his colleagues and I think that they will do extremely well.
But that cannot be done when there is a white population of 250,000 which has built up a complicated European society with all that goes with it. It does not make sense to hand that over to the same process of learning by mistakes. One has to have a little common sense in these matters and try to proceed sensibly, bearing in mind the established positions of those who live in the country.
Under the 1961 Constitution, Southern Rhodesia embarked on the right road, leading, eventually, in 20 years at the most, to an African electoral majority through the Africans attaining the qualifications for the exercise of casting a vote in a mixed community. That was what we thought only three years ago. Everybody, on both sides of the House, thought it.

Mr. Michael Foot: No.

Mr. Bell: I apologise if—

Mr. Foot: The Official Opposition moved an Amendment against the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Bell: I do not think they voted against the Second Reading.

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman must think again; they did vote against it.

Mr. Bell: In that case I feel reasonably certain that it was a reasoned Amendment and not a straight vote against.
Certainly I think that there was great unanimity in the House on that occasion; certainly there was unanimity among those who, at the time, spoke for the Africans and the Europeans at the discussions on Southern Rhodesia. In my view, what has happened since is a very sad development. I feel there is a great danger that we shall succumb to pressures from the newly independent African States and make some ruinous bargain for the European population of Southern Rhodesia. I am not very impressed when I hear people like Dr. Nkrumah and others—who, perhaps, it might be politic

not to mention—complaining about the narrowness of the franchise in Southern Rhodesia. What sort of franchise is being currently exercised in Ghana? There is, of course, one man, one vote in Ghana; but, as someone has cynically said, it tends to be one man, one vote—one election.
Once there is a one-party State, which is now established in Ghana and is I fear, though I hope not, about to be established in Kenya—

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Hear, hear.

Mr. Bell: —and which looks like spreading to other territories, what is the point of having a vote at all? There is only one candidate for whom to vote. I have heard this argument developed by Communists with whom I have discussed it in various countries. The hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu)—who just now said, "Hear, hear"—was a colleague of mine on a Parliamentary delegation to Roumania on one occasion and he and I discussed this with Roumanian politicians. We said, "How can you have democracy and elections when there is only one candidate for each constituency?" They said that we did not really understand; that there was a lot of discussion and weeding out before the one candidate was chosen and, therefore, they did have democracy.
It is all a point of view. It is not for us to thrust our views down the throats of other people, but a one-party State, while it may suit a certain stage of African development, is not democracy as I understand it. I do not question the right of Dr. Nkrumah or anyone else to have a one-party State if they think that right. I do question the right of such people to complain about qualifications for the franchise in other African States, in particular in Southern Rhodesia.
In her peroration, the hon. Member for Blackburn said that if only the Government would alter their position in Southern Rhodesia she and her colleagues—indeed, we in Britain—would help them to negotiate a new Constitution with an African majority, in which there would be adequate safeguards for the minority. That is easily said, but we negotiated a Constitution for Ghana in which there were adequate safeguards


for the minority. What happened to the minority? What happened to the Parliamentary Opposition? They went to prison. What happened to some of the other minorities whose position was protected? What happened to the Asantehene? His position was supposed to be protected, and there were other people belonging to minorities whose positions were protected. What has happened to them?
When the hon. Lady says that we should give the Africans a vote each and trust them, and help them to negotiate a constitution in which there would be adequate safeguards against the arbitrary power of an African majority, I am inclined to ask what she would be disposed to do—or what she would suggest we did about it—if that did not work out as expected, and if those 250,000 people were to be put into an intolerable position in the land of their birth, the country which they have built up in a most inspiring way and administered with humanity and brought forward in a period of 50 years in a manner which ought to make every British heart proud. What would the hon. Lady want anyone to do about it if what she advocates did not work out? I have a strong suspicion that she would not ask anybody to do anything about it. She would suggest that we should provide money to resettle those people in the United Kingdom. It is appropriate that I should be speaking on the Consolidated Fund Bill, but this is not all just a question of money. There is more to it than that.
There are great and sad problems in Africa. I, at least, can say that I have always been frank about my view. I never felt—I have written this in a letter to The Times and so I am not saying it for the first time—that we should have been so critical of South Africa. My view is that if our multi-racial experiment in Central Africa worked out, it would not be necessary to attack South Africa because, plainly, South Africa would be wrong. We would have found the right solution and made it work. And, if our multi-racial experiment in Central Africa failed, how could we criticise? The Federation has collapsed in a tragic ruin, a really tragic ruin, because it was the best hope of a multiracial community. If it had succeeded,

we could have pointed south and said to Dr. Verwoerd, "This is how you do it". Vulgar abuse will not get anyone anywhere; it is much better to show them how to do it.
The Federation has gone, it is no use weeping over that, but Southern Rhodesia is left. In it lies the only hope left of showing the world how this can be done. I think that it will be an absolute tragedy if, in order to pacify and to placate people like Dr. Nkrumah and some of his colleagues, we abandon those in Southern Rhodesia who have the courage to hold on to a steady course; who refuse to be rushed or blown about by the "wind of change" or the "gale of the world" or any of these cant expressions; who are, in a pragmatic, practical and progressive way, dedicated to working a multi-racial experiment based on qualifications for a franchise. There will be no vote tonight, but I am glad that the hon. Member for Blackburn raised this question and gave an opportunity for those of us who disagree with her so strongly to say what we think about Southern Rhodesia.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: Anyone who listened to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) would agree about the seriousness of the situation which she described. In a moment I shall try to answer some of the comments on her speech made by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). First, I wish to say something, through the Under-Secretary, to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies.
Those of us who had to make up our minds whether we wanted to raise subjects on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill had a large number of questions we wished to raise with the right hon. Gentleman. We had the further subject we should have liked to raise with him which has occurred as a result of the development on the Malta Independence Bill. It would have been proper and graceful to the people of Malta if time had been found for the Commonwealth Relations Secretary to make an apology for the way in which the House has been treated, and an apology to the people of Malta. He did not choose to make that apology, and even today when he was questioned he made no apology about that matter.
When we had the debate on the Malta Independence Bill I was presumptuous enough to say that many hon. Members opposite had not read the Constitution on which we had to vote; the matter had been so violently rushed through the House. It is now apparent that the Commonwealth Relations Secretary had himself not read the Constitution. It is a shocking thing that a Measure of such grave importance to a British territory—the same applies to all territories for which we are responsible—such a shocking and shameful example should be given to those whom, according to the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South, we are supported to be teaching democracy and that we should give such a poor exhibition of democracy by the way we treat the independence of Malta. I hope it will be conveyed to the Commonwealth Relations Secretary that it does not do him any good to treat the House as contemptuously as he has done over the Malta Independence Bill.
There is another question which many of us would wish to raise with the right hon. Gentleman if we were able to raise more than one subject. I should have liked, equally with the question of Southern Rhodesia, to have raised the question of the situation in British Guiana. That is a very serious matter. The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South has spoken about political prisoners in Ghana. I am absolutely opposed to people anywhere being locked up for political offences. Some of us have protested as violently about what is happening in Ghana as we have protested about what is happening in Southern Rhodesia. The hon. Member has to wake up to the fact that hon. Members of this House have responsibilities for these territories.
We have a direct responsibility for political prisoners in British Guiana. At present 36 of them, including the Deputy Prime Minister, have been locked up without trial and without any charge being made against them. I understand, although I am not absolutely certain, that the Deputy Prime Minister has been locked up in circumstances in which his wife is able to see him only on one day in 35. Yet since the announcement of the proposals of the Commonwealth Secretary about British Guiana, so far from violence being abated, it has grown. Many people

have been killed there in most bitter and tragic circumstances.
The situation in British Guiana is an extremely serious one. It is made all the more serious because, despite all the appeals that have been made from this side of the House, particularly my my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley), my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway), for the Secretary of State to take some new initiative, the Government have flatly refused to do so. Therefore, the House will adjourn in circumstances in which great dangers might arise in British Guiana. I hope that it does not happen—of course we all hope it will not—but there may be much greater shedding of blood there. The British Government sends us away in circumstances in which they have no proposition whatever to offer for dealing with this situation. The right hon. Gentleman has very direct responsibilities in this matter. He has said that he will take no new initiative whatever.
Doubtless it was under his influence that the Commonwealth Conference was prevented from dealing with British Guiana as fully as some people, who know much more about it than he, would have wished. If we read the comments of Dr. Eric Williams after the conference we see that he considers that the situation was dealt with in a completely unsatisfactory way. He has put forward fresh proposals which have been rejected by the British Government. A very heavy responsibility rests on the Government for what has happened in the last few days.
I hope the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South is not now leaving the Chamber, because I want to make some comments on his speech. I have been referring to political prisoners in British Guiana because he apparently protested about people being locked up in Ghana. I shall return to his speech in a few moments. One of the gravest failures of this Government has been its conduct of colonial affairs. Unfortunately, what they have done in regard to British Guiana, and even more, what they are doing about Southern Rhodesia, may have the effect of injuring the good reputation which this country largely deserves throughout large parts of the


world—particularly in Africa—for what she has done. Therefore we have some serious quarrels with the right hon. Gentleman.
I do not know what has happened now to the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South. He apparently has skedaddled, but after making such a speech as he made he should have stayed to hear the reply. William Hazlitt once said:
If you have something nasty to say about me, say it behind my back.
I should not like to apply that to the hon. Member. I would much rather say it to his face. The hon. Member talked about history. There is a long history to this subject of Southern Rhodesia. A day or two ago I read through the debate of 8th November, 1961, when the Southern Rhodesian Bill was being considered. It gave the present constitution to Southern Rhodesia. It is a rather interesting fact that the development of the whole Southern Rhodesian problem fits into this Parliament in this sense. We have just had the concluding chapter of the Commonwealth Conference. The first chapter, in a sense, opened at the beginning of the 1959 Parliament when Sir Edgar Whitehead, Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia at that time, appealed to the British Government to introduce a new constitution for the first time since 1923. The whole process of dealing with Southern Rhodesia was initiated at the beginning of this Parliament. We can see what the Government have done during these five years and how we have reached the present situation.
When I read the debate of five years ago I thought the whole thing was absolutely out of date. Anyone who reads it now can see that the Government speeches on the Bill were completely irrelevant to the constitution. When I heard the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South, however, I realised that perhaps one hon. Member still thought in terms of the 1961 debate. Incidentally, I should correct him for he is absolutely wrong in suggesting that the Labour Party supported the new Constitution. He was absolutely wrong to suggest that there was merely a mild Amendment, for what was moved from the Opposition Front Bench was:
this House cannot assent to a Bill which is intended to implement constitutional pro-

posals which fail to provide for the African people of Southern Rhodesia either adequate safeguards against discrimination or adequate representation in the legislature."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th November, 1961; Vol. 648, c. 1051–2.]

Mr. Ronald Bell: I quite agree. The hon. Member is quite right. I am glad to make the correction. This arose from my practice of giving my opponents credit for more sense than in fact they have.

Mr. Foot: What the hon. Member was trying to do was ignorantly to misrepresent the Opposition. When his ignorance is corrected he has not even the grace to acknowledge it.
It is difficult to know where to start to argue with the hon. Member because his terms are so different. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn made a most moving appeal to people in Southern Rhodesia, however deep the provocation, to avoid violence, but the hon. Member accused her of wishing to stir up violence. He also suggested that she was animated by malice against the white settlers.

Mr. Bell: I did not accuse the hon. Lady of trying to stir up violence. I said that in her reference to Mr. Sithole she was more than exculpatory.

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman said more than that. I think that if he examines what he said he will find that he is as mistaken as he was in his previous recollections of the 1961 debate.
He also said that my hon. Friend was actuated by malice against the white settlers. He used the word "hatred". This was a most shocking thing for him to say. Whatever the differences of opinion, he ought to recognise that the policy which my hon. Friend advocates is as much in the interests of the white people of Southern Rhodesia as it is in the interests of the coloured people of Southern Rhodesia. I am sorry that the hon. Member has been to Southern Rhodesia recently, for I am sure that he has done a lot of damage there, because if the people in Rhodesia were foolish enough to listen to his advice, the risks of bloodshed would be greatly increased.
It is difficult to argue with the hon. Member because the terms are so different. He said that Southern


Rhodesia has had a great democratic history. I do not know what he means by those words. Democracy is associated with the suffrage. Apparently the hon. Member is in favour of democracy but opposed to universal suffrage, and the two are very difficult to combine. It is difficult to define what democracy is if it is not something to do with how many people vote.

Mr. Bell: For 700 years we had democracy without universal adult suffrage.

Mr. Foot: If the hon. Member thinks that this country has been democratic for 700 years, I can see that the terms are so different that it is impossible to argue with him. We are glad to hear—the most progressive thing that he said—that he is in favour of this advance throughout the years. Apparently he is now in favour of the Reform Act of 1832. I do not suppose that his ancestors were in favour of it at the time. He is catching up.
This country has not been democratic. It finally became democratic just after the First World War, and we have had 30 or 40 years of democracy in this country. It is a very young and exciting dream, and that is why many other nations want to adopt it for themselves. The whole point about the Southern Rhodesian Constitution, about which he was so enthusiastic—and, indeed, the precise reason why he was enthusiastic about it—is that it is undemocratic. That is why it was approved by Mr. Ian Smith, who has worked out the figures a good deal more accurately than has the hon. Member and who says that not in his life-time will there be a majority rule in Southern Rhodesia under this Constitution. I do not think that I can waste any more time on the hon. Member. Moreover, he is in conflict with the recommendations not only of the Commonwealth Conference but of his own Government. He is even more reactionary than his own Government, and he had better argue it out with them.
The seriousness of the situation, as illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, arises, as she quite rightly said, from the complete difference in interpretation of what happened at the Commonwealth Conference. It is a very serious matter indeed, and it is impossible

to imagine anything more damaging to the Commonwealth. It might even be the factor which could destroy it, for the British Government and the other Governments have a complete difference of opinion about what happened at the Commonwealth Conference. We have to probe to see, as far as we can, what happened and how the Governments interpret it.
First, we must take two separate matters to which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn has already referred in a slightly different context. The first is the question of prisoners. Here, again, it is not some academic question of how many political prisoners there are compared with other places. There are political prisoners in Southern Rhodesia at present, for the leaders of the African people are under restrictions—and under restrictions which have been condemned by the High Court and which the High Court said were invalid. The Southern Rhodesian Government went further with these restrictions; they keep these people in prison, or in some restrictive custody.
The Commonwealth Prime Ministers discussed this matter fully, although the Prime Minister had told us on many occasions that they would not discuss it. Somehow they managed to get it into the communiqué, even though, according to the right hon. Gentleman, they did not discuss it at the Conference. They said,
With a view to diminishing tensions and preparing the way for such a conference, an appeal was made for the release of all the detained African leaders".
The Prime Minister of Britain commenting on that, later in the communiqué,
said that he would give careful consideration to all the views expressed by other Commonwealth Prime Ministers".
These seemed to me clear enough, and extremely important, declarations. They were important from the human point of view, because these people are locked up without trial; from the political point of view, because these are the leaders of the African people in Southern Rhodesia; and from the practical point of view because we can get no constitutional advance in Southern Rhodesia unless we talk to the African leaders.
What does the Prime Minister do? This was what was put out in the communiqué and what the Prime Ministers of the other Commonwealth countries had


agreed. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn has already quoted what the British Prime Minister said at the Press Conference. It is bad enough if hon. Members look at what he said in the House, when he answered questions about the Commonwealth Conference. As reported in HANSARD of 15th July, when the Prime Minister was asked about the prisoners, he said,
Therefore, I have asked Mr. Smith to come here. After seeing Mr. Smith, I shall have to consider what further steps are possible. As the communiqué says, an amnesty for prisoners is a matter for the Southern Rhodesian Government. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, in the case of one prisoner, an appeal is pending next week. Therefore, I think that I had better say no more on this".
It seems to me that this is a strange and equivocal answer, because the communiqué specifically does not say that the amnesty is a matter for the Southern Rhodesian Government. As far as I can read the plain language, the communiqué said, "An appeal was made by all the Prime Ministers that the prisoners should be released and the British Prime Minister said that he would take careful consideration of what the other Prime Ministers felt". Yet the Prime Minister told us that the communiqué said that
an amnesty for prisoners is a matter for the Southern Rhodesian Government.
The communiqué says nothing of the sort. One of my hon. Friends comments that this was straight talk. I have studied the Prime Minister carefully. If I accused him of deliberate equivocation I might be ruled out of order by the Chair, and I do not do so, but I must say that compared with the Prime Minister I am coming to regard the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), as a paragon of blunt and homely candour. The present Prime Minister always manages to put a gloss on these statements which means something slightly different.
Therefore, on the question of the prisoners, we want to know exactly what is happening. The Prime Minister made the excuse to the House that an appeal "is pending next week". That next week has passed, so the right hon. Gentleman cannot have that excuse. Has he done anything about it? Mr. Ian Smith has not come to London. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn

has described that situation. Does the Prime Minister take the view that, as Mr. Ian Smith has not come to London, therefore he has not been able to raise the question of the prisoners? What form has the communication taken? I hope that the Under-Secretary who is to reply will tell us the answers, because we certainly have a right to have answers to these questions before we depart. The statement is made on the authority of all the Commonwealth Prime Ministers that an appeal is to be made for the release of a certain number of prisoners, and the House is asked to depart without knowing what is the response to that appeal and what the British Government have done to carry out the apparent undertaking which they gave to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers and which was certainly the understanding of some of those Prime Ministers as a result of the Conference.
We want to know that from the Under-Secretary who is to reply on behalf of the Commonwealth Relations Office. I hope that he will not tell us that this is a matter for him and that the Prime Minister would have to make a statement on such a matter. That would not be adequate. I am dealing now with one of the major matters dealt with in this part of the communiqué following the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman should be able to give us fresh information. What representations have the British Government made to the Southern Rhodesian Government about the release of prisoners? Have they had any effect? If the Southern Rhodesian Government have said that they will not release these men, who are being held without any charges being made against them and also in defiance of the High Court, if there has been no response, and if the Southern Rhodesian Government will take no steps to release these men, what further protests do the British Government intend to make? Have the Government and the Commonwealth Relations Office communicated with the other Commonwealth Prime Ministers and told them what have been the results of the representations made about the prisoners?
I hope that we shall have the clearest answers to these questions. This is what debates on the Consolidated Fund Bill


are for. We go away at the end of this week, and not only will it not be possible for Members to make direct representations for the release of people who we think should never have been imprisoned, but it will not be possible for us to make representations to discover what the Government have done to carry out the general understanding of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.
I come to the second major point dealt with in the communiqué. This is the constitutional question. Though the release of the prisoners is connected with the constitutional question, the constitutional question is a broader and even more important question. These are the essential sentences in the communiqué:
The view was also expressed that an Independence Conference should be convened which the leaders of all parties in Southern Rhodesia should be free to attend. The object would be to seek agreement on the steps by which Southern Rhodesia might proceed to independence within the Commonwealth at the earliest practicable time on the basis of majority rule.
We know that that is the statement of the other Prime Ministers. The comment of the British Government, which is the responsibility of the Prime Minister, comes a little later in the same statement of their responsibility which I mentioned in connection with the prisoners:
The Prime Minister of Britain said that he would give careful consideration to all the views expressed …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July, 1964; Vol. 698, c. 1429–35.]
Therefore, the British Government are committed in the communiqué to giving careful consideration to the proposal for the calling of an independence conference at the earliest practicable time.
I want to know what has happened about that. The calling of an independence conference to try to discover measures for widening democratic possibilities in Southern Rhodesia is not a new proposal. It now has the sanction and support of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, but it has been made many times before. However, it has been flatly rejected by the Government. I am not sure whether it was the very first occasion, but in June, 1962 the United Nations Assembly passed by 73 votes to one the demand for a Constitutional Conference in Southern Rhodesia. The only opposers were Great Britain, South Africa and Portugal. Seventy-three

nations then supported the proposal which is now adopted by the Commonwealth.
Some hon. Members opposite do not like the United Nations. Very often they attack it and jeer at it. The Prime Minister is more guilty in this respect than almost anybody else. I wonder whether the Prime Minister dilated on these matters to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, because this is a peculiar situation, particularly when we are told that this was a very successful Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference in which the Prime Minister of Britain played a leading part. It is interesting that what the Commonwealth Prime Ministers did about the constitutional question in Southern Rhodesia was to adopt the same resolution as the United Nations passed in June, 1962 and which the British Government opposed. So we are making some progress.
Another warning was given to the Government about Southern Rhodesia which I might be pardoned for quoting to the House. This was the warning given by the British spokesman at the United Nations at the time, who wrote a message to the British Government in August, 1962 trying to warn the British Government what were the perils in Southern Rhodesia and making some suggestions as to what they should do about it. I ask hon. Members to remember that this is August, 1962, quite a long time ago. He said:
What could be done to save the situation? Unless something is done very soon non-cooperation and violence on one side and repression on the other are likely to rule out any hope of a peaceful settlement, and then all the forces at present moving in Africa will come into conflict. There is perhaps still time to avoid such a calamity, but to do so some practical gesture is required from the Southern Rhodesian Government and some reassurance from Her Majesty's Government.
Could the Southern Rhodesian Government be persuaded to release the political detainees and to declare that the new repressive legislation will not be brought into effect if violence is avoided? At the same time could the Southern Rhodesian Government be persuaded to make substantial improvements in the franchise? …
Might not the British Government at the same time declare that we are in favour of progressive steps towards full participation of all the people of the territory in the Government, and that following the forthcoming elections we shall invite the leaders of all parties to participate in a conference on future constitutional advance?


This was the proposal made by Sir Hugh Foot to the Government in private in August, 1962. He returned here to urge it upon the Government and to ask them—"Why do you not listen? Do you not know what is happening in Southern Rhodesia? Do you not know what is happening at the United Nations? Do you think it is a good thing that we should be in a minority in the world alongside only Portugal and South Africa?" The Government rejected it. They would not move an inch towards any proposal for a constitutional conference then.
Now they have had to accept it. I do not blame Members for being absent from debates. We all know that we do so at various times. It is a pity that some of those hon. Members who tabled the Motion for the greater glorification of the Prime Minister for bringing about the great success of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference have not turned up to discuss this subject. Where is the triumph on Southern Rhodesia when what the British Prime Minister had to do on Southern Rhodesia at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference was to accept the proposal which Sir Hugh Foot had put forward but which the British Government had rejected and accept the proposal passed by the United Nations which the British Government voted against? That is what happened, and I am sure that the Under-Secretary could confirm my history in every detail.
What is to happen about it? Now that we know that the British Government were forced into this against their will, will they carry it out? My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn gave a long list stating what were the understandings of the other Commonwealth Prime Ministers. We are here today partly to extract from the Minister the Government's interpretation of their commitments under the communiqué of which they are so proud. There are many parts of the communiqué which we applaud and of which we are thoroughly in favour, but we need to know to what the Government feel committed and what steps they have taken and intend to take since the communiqué was issued.
When Mr. Ian Smith is eventually persuaded to come here—or if he will be

courteous enough to come—what will Her Majesty's Government propose to him for carrying out the proposals in the communiqué because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn indicated, this could be the most dangerous moment in the history of the British Commonwealth. There have been suggestions to the effect that the Prime Minister had a great success at the Commonwealth Conference. Personally, I believe that the Prime Minister both as Prime Minister and in his previous rôle as Commonwealth Secretary—and in his support of Britain's unconditional entry into the Common Market—did more to injure the Commonwealth than any other member of the administration.
When we are now told that he has rescued the situation and that he has achieved a great success, I am reminded of the famous story by Victor Hugo of the man who let loose a battering ram against a ship but who at the last moment, with great agility, prevented it from doing its full damage. He was first decorated and then shot. It might be a commendable way of dealing with this situation, bearing in mind the way in which the Prime Minister did his rescuing operation.
If, in fact, a better atmosphere prevailed at the Commonwealth Conference and then it was discovered afterwards that there had been what some would regard as deception about what was agreed, I do not believe that the Commonwealth would easily survive that. There is a further political deduction to be drawn. The truth is that the British Commonwealth can survive in the end only if it is prepared to have a common policy about Southern Rhodesia. I do not mean in terms of every detail and step, but if there is to be a departure from the principle of trying to seek, at the earliest possible moment, majority rule in Southern Rhodesia, the Commonwealth could break up and, for this reason, Her Majesty's Government are asking the House of Commons to go away in very dangerous circumstances.
We know that this Government need to be carefully treated on this question. They have said that their elbows are easily jarred—that they must be treated kindly or they may upset things. They have said that officially, but what they are asking us to do in this case is to trust them on the basis of their actions


at this Conference. I must say that in view of the history of this question, in view of the tardiness which the Government have shown in the acceptance of the application of the same principle to Southern Rhodesia as has had to be applied to other parts of Africa, we are made suspicious as to whether they will carry it out. I am glad to support the urgency which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn placed on the serious nature of the question; that if there were to develop any misunderstanding between Her Majesty's Government and the other Governments of the Commonwealth about Southern Rhodesia and what was agreed at the conference, it could have most serious consequences.
The Under-Secretary spoke in the previous debate as a genuine supporter of the Commonwealth. The hon. Gentleman, who has the respect of all of my hon. Friends, spoke admirably of how he wished to see the Commonwealth succeed, and I am sure that he is sincere in his views. However, many hon. Members opposite have lost interest in the Commonwealth now that the majority of it has become a more democratic institution. That is why many of them were eager to get into Europe, for they had lost interest in an institution in which others had the same rights as they have had in some of these territories.
I agree that some hon. Members opposite want to see the Commonwealth strengthened, and the Under-Secretary spoke eloquently of how proud he was at the way in which the old Empire had developed into the Commonwealth. That is something of which this country has every right to be proud. It is one of the great developments of the twentieth century and this country has, in many respects, been a leader in this development.
The appalling tragedy is that all that goodwill, all that following, all that greatness—in Africa, Asia and all over the world—could be thrown away in Southern Rhodesia. For this reason we want to know from the Government today exactly how they will carry out their commitments on the two questions of constitutional advance in Southern Rhodesia and the appeal for the release of the prisoners which is essential to help secure that advance.

We want to know what Her Majesty's Government are doing to sustain the ideas which were preached so proudly at the Commonwealth Conference.

Mr. Dan Jones: On a point of order. In view of the serious charges which have been made, in a reasoned manner, I agree, by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) against the Prime Minister, and since a junior Minister will be replying to the debate—remembering that a junior Minister can easily be at a serious disadvantage—have we not the right to request the presence of the Prime Minister to answer these questions, since, in a few days' time, we will be leaving here for a few months?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): That is not a point of order.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: I wish, first, to apologise to hon. Members for being absent for part of the debate. I was called out of the Chamber on several occasions and heard the debate intermittently. I heard the beginning of the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) and most of the speech of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot). I hope that the House will bear with me, since circumstances completely beyond my control meant my missing some of the debate.
The hon. Member—I prefer to say my hon. Friend and near neighbour—for Ebbw Vale said in his closing remarks that this country has reason to be proud of the way in which so many of the constitutional territories of the former British Empire have been guided and assisted towards the status of self-governing countries. I thoroughly agree with him about that, as all hon. Members must. I think that he will agree with me that the Labour Government of 1945 to 1951 had a great deal of which to be proud for the part they played in continuing the first steps which had been taken with the white Dominions before the war in pursuing the process into India, Pakistan, Ceylon, and so on. I also hope that he will agree that since 1951 successive Con-


servative Governments have had considerable reason to be proud of the way they have pursued that process in so many territories.
When one lists these territories, one is amazed at how many countries have gone on that road of progress towards self-government since 1951. One thinks of the countries in East Africa, of Ghana, Nigeria, and of Malaya, Singapore and others. Looking down the list, one realises that this process has gone a very long way indeed. I was rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman should have spoken of certain suspicions of the Government's intention to do this as emphatically in the case of Southern Rhodesia.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not disregard the fact that the history of Southern Rhodesia has been very different from that of any of the other territories. He does not forget that 40 years ago, in a referendum held in that territory, only by a narrow margin was it decided not to join with South Africa. Had the people voted only slightly differently, we would not even be discussing this question now. Southern Rhodesia's history has been completely different, and it amazes me that any hon. Member opposite can make a speech that seems completely to disregard that fact.
Our relationship with countries like Ghana and Nigeria before independence was clear-cut. We had the power, and we showed that we had the desire and the intention, to guide them to self-government. On the other hand, our relationship with Southern Rhodesia, as hon. Gentlemen know, is a very delicate and difficult one, and cannot be compared with our relationship with any of the other territories.
It is folly for us to disregard the fact that, in Southern Rhodesia's internal affairs, our Prime Minister and Government have virtually no power at all. That is a hard fact of the situation that we must recognise. To compare the position there with that in other territories, or even to pretend that it is comparable, does not make for a really useful debate on such a subject. We still have certain reserved powers in external affairs, but in internal affairs—none at all.
The point I seek to make is that our relationship with Southern Rhodesia is completely different from the relationship of other Commonwealth countries with Southern Rhodesia. Those other countries can pass resolutions and say what they like—they have no powers at all in Southern Rhodesia's internal or external affairs. Australia has no powers in respect of Southern Rhodesia, neither has Canada—if Southern Rhodesia cared to tell them to mind their own business, they could do nothing about it. None of the other countries of the Commonwealth has any powers, internal or external, in relation to Southern Rhodesia, and that is a very important fact.
As I see the law position—and hon. Members are not always prepared to recognise this—convention is almost as important as statute law; in other words, the very fact that we have refrained for a very long time from exercising a particular power means that, by the convention of our Constitution, that power may have ceased to exist. Therefore, if we wish to do anything in this sphere, the whole relationship must be one of persuasion. We can only hope to influence Southern Rhodesia in what we deem to be a desirable direction by persuasion.
I would say in all sincerity to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale and his hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn that persuasion is not always best achieved by blunt outspoken language; it is sometimes carried out more effectively in private conversation. If I want to persuade a friend, I do not announce it to the world. If I want to influence a friend, I do not necessarily tell my neighbour, too. Indeed, if I do, I may be damaging my own ability to influence and to persuade.
Although, normally, outspokenness, blunt and plain speaking may be, and probably are, virtues, I respectfully submit that when one has little more than powers of persuasion they may positively damage one's ability to help—

Mr. E. Fernyhough: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that my hon. Friends are only following the example of the Prime Minister, who said that he would go in for straight talking?

Mr. Gower: I have said that straight talking may be a virtue in most phases of policy, but I suggest, not only to the House in general, but to the hon. Gentleman in particular, that this is a very specialised example, due to the history of the territory, due to the limitations of our legal powers which are, in effect, almost non-existent. I was astonished the other day to read a very distinguished former Southern Rhodesian judge stating that certain things can be done by the Southern Rhodesian Government that would be illegal. That sort of argument does not help. What George Washington did was illegal; the action was illegal, but it does not help us to say so—it was effective. One has to deal with this sort of reality.
A resolution was announced in the form of a communiqué. The hon. Gentleman obviously knows as well as I do that this is a matter of balances, of delicate negotiation, and that when people said that this was a praiseworthy conference they meant that it was remarkable that some combined observation could have been made by so many dissimilar Ministers of so many dissimilar countries about so dynamic and difficult and so delicate a topic. In that sense, I plead with the hon. Gentleman to agree that it was a considerable achievement.
In the light of what has been achieved, not only by his own side but by this side in guiding and helping so many territories to self-government—because that has been our objective—I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider that we have not wished to withhold from the people of any territory the democratic powers we have the power to confer—our whole history in recent years shows that we have not—but here is a case where we have no power to confer those powers and, if we push too hard, we may prevent the people who have the power from using it.
My correspondence with people in Southern Rhodesia makes me believe that some of the things said in this House have had an effect completely opposite to that which those making them intended. They have been making the progressives less progressive. Thai is the difficulty. Most of the power resides there, not here, and we must not

forget that. It is a very difficult, a diabolically difficult situation. That is why I respectfully submit that those who, with the finest intentions and finest motives, talk of blunt and plain speaking may, contrary to their best objectives, be having the most terrible effect on the hope and the possibility of an ultimately beneficial solution.
The hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn asked for a blunt assessment, a blunt interpretation, and proof of what has been said to substantiate this delicately evolved communiqué. I should be surprised if they could easily be given. If I had wanted to influence Mr. Ian Smith I certainly would not announce it to the world at this stage. I should be having private conversations if I were in that position. The last thing that I would be doing would be to say things which might embarrass anybody who is involved in this problem. I hope, for these reasons, that anyone who speaks subsequently in the debate will speak with great caution about these terribly difficult problems.

Mr. M. Foot: Does the hon. Member think that there would be any difficulty or any awkwardness in Members of this House stating as strongly as they can how important they think it is that the Southern Rhodesia Government should respond to the appeal of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers for the release of people who are in prison without trial?

Mr. Gower: I see nothing wrong in individuals saying that, but it is wrong for the same individuals to say to the Government that they should make a demand on the Southern Rhodesian Government which our Government have no power to enforce. That is a very different thing. I see no harm in my sending a letter or doing anything else to influence any Government against tyranny over any citizen of whatever colour or race, but my objection is to calling upon our Government to do something which they have no power to enforce.
This is the danger and the difficulty. It is easy for other Commonwealth Governments to say things because they have no power, and they can be told by the Southern Rhodesia Government that


they have no power, but if our Government say these things the Southern Rhodesia Government may think that we have a reason for saying so, but the power of enforcement is very tenous. I hope, therefore, that those who follow me in the debate will speak with great forbearance on a matter for which it is so difficult to find a solution.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. D. Jones) made an appeal a few moments ago that the Secretary of State should be present. In view of the reasoned, thoughtful and strong indictment against the Government by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), and my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot), we consider that the Secretary of State should be present. May I therefore ask the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether, in the interval, he has had an opportunity of raising this matter with the Secretary of State and, if he has not, whether he will now do so?

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies (Mr. R. P. Hornby): I hope that the House will agree that I have been present throughout the debate and have taken careful note of the comments that have been made. I hope that the House will also agree that, in accordance with the arrangements which have been made, I should answer points made in speeches to which I have listened rather than that we should call upon my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has not been able to be present during the debate.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I regret that the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) has not been present during the whole of the debate, though, of course, I accept the reason. The hon. Member has heard the greater part of the speeches by my hon. Friends the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot), but, unfortunately, he did not hear the greater part of the speech of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). I regret it, because if the hon. Member for Barry had done so I am sure that for the sake of

the point of view which he holds, and of the party which he represents, he would have repudiated very much of what was said.
The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South is, by constituency, my neighbour and I am very well aware of his views, but I have to say frankly—and I regret that he is not now in the House—that I have been shocked by some of his expressions this evening. He said three things to which I want to reply, because I appreciate that they represent an ignorant view which is rather widespread.
The hon. Member's first statement was that the attitude of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, and of those of us who are proud to be associated with her expression of views, is motivated by hatred of the white settlers in these territories. His second charge was that we on these benches fail to criticise violence when it is practised by Africans. The third charge was that we are silent when African States practise dictatorial methods, and his particular reference was to Ghana.
If the hon. Gentleman did hear most of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, he must have been impressed, as I think we all were, by the appeal that she made for a change of policy in Southern Rhodesia in the interests not only of the Africans but of the European community. The hon. Member should know very well that there is a considerable and influential minority among the white community in Southern Rhodesia who share the views which are expressed on this side of the House. He must be aware that there are courageous men, not only the many unknown, but men who have occupied high Government office, who have criticised the régime in Southern Rhodesia because they feel that whilst that régime continues it will ultimately be the security and the safety of their fellow white residents in Southern Rhodesia which will be at stake.
I belong to a family of three generations of white persons in Colonial Territories, either in the old British Empire or in the French Empire. Not only do I have that historical tradition, but I have been to those countries, and I have got the sense of kith and kin. I particularly appreciate the situation of the young children who are growing up in those territories. We are not just


thinking of the rights of the African peoples. We are thinking of the future of the European residents in those territories.
I would put it to the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South, if he were in the Chamber, that the experience of other African countries is showing that the greatest happiness for European residents in those territories must lie in the recognition of the rights of the African population. It was only about 10 days ago that the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South was welcoming the independence of Northern Rhodesia and that I found myself on that rare occasion speaking in agreement with him. Did he take that view one year ago about Northern Rhodesia? Did he not a year ago take the view that to grant independence to Northern Rhodesia, now Zambia, would be dangerous to the European residents? Independence is now gained for Zambia, and the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South paid a tribute in this House to the racial generosity of Mr. Kenneth Kaunda, the new Prime Minister, and expressed confidence that the European population there would be happier and safer.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has now returned to his place.
What is true of Northern Rhodesia or Zambia has been true of Kenya, of Malawi and of Tanzan—fears among the European population before independence was gained but, after independence, the European population being rather surprised by the spirit of co-operation on the part of the African régime and finding themselves more secure and more happy than they were before.
The second charge which the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South made was that my hon. Friend and those of us who have been associated with her have failed to criticise violence when it has been practised by Africans. Some of us have more right to criticise violence when it is practised than the hon. Gentleman has because, philosophically, we are opposed to violence itself. The hon. Gentleman suggested that we are silent when it is practised by Africans but are alerted when it is practised by Europeans. I might almost retort that he is silent when it is prac-

tised by Europeans and alerted when it is practised by Africans, but I do not do so.
I believe that violence should be condemned whenever it takes place. The precedent in the great historical struggle for independence in the world was that set by Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian National Movement. Nevertheless, I go on to say that those who, in philosophy, are not opposed to violence have no right to condemn those who are denied democracy and self-government when they appeal to violence. That is the very basis of the Jeffersonian principles of the American Constitution which we have so often praised.
Some of us who have a little influence with African leaders have, on every possible occasion, urged them to refrain from violence in their struggle, and the hon. Gentleman has not the least right to say that we have failed in our denunciation of it. He referred to an incident in South Africa. Only yesterday, I sent a message to South Africa regretting and deploring that a bomb had been placed in a railway station there which had led to the injury of other people. It just is not true that we are silent when violence is practised by the African and condemn it only when it is committed by the European.
Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman said that we are silent about the dictatorial attitude of certain African Governments, particularly the Government of Ghana. Many of us believe in liberal democracy to such an extent that we denounce imprisonment without trial for political opinions whenever and wherever it takes place. I have never been to a country where the Government practised imprisonment for political opinions without going to the leader of that country and expressing my dissent and criticism. I have done it Poland, in Yugoslavia, in Ghana and in Tanganyika where it is now operating against some trade union leaders. I have done it in Cairo, in the United Arab Republic.
The hon. Member must not, in this House or in his constituency, take the line that those of us who stand for the rights of African peoples and for their democracy and liberty are full of praise for all that the Africans do and full of condemnation of what the whites and Europeans do. That is not our attitude.


We stand on principles, and we denounce any denials of those principles, whether practised by Africans or Europeans. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not again make the kind of accusations which he has made tonight.
Passing from those criticisms, I want to turn to the rather deeper and more philosophical argument which has emerged about democracy in Africa. I recognise at once that the degree of tolerance and democracy which we have in this country has come from hundreds of years of struggle. If it had not been for great pioneers who were martyrs through those centuries in the struggle for liberty we should not now have our democracy. I do not pretend for a moment that democracy can come overnight in any territory. It cannot be born over the weekend. We have not the right to expect African countries, suddenly becoming independent, to be perfect specimens of democratic practice at once.
That conclusion leads me to ask this question: in these circumstances, is it better to continue an alien occupation of those territories or to grant them self-government? I think that we might have been in a better position to assert the principle of continued colonial rule if our history had always been rather better. I admit that one of the things which made me angry was that at the moment when Dr. Nkrumah and the Ghanian Government were being denounced our own Government were practising in what was then Nyasaland imprisonments, untruthful assertions of conspiracies, and suppressions on a much vaster scale than were being practised by Dr. Nkrumah. I admit at once that that was a rather exceptional incident in a period of years, but we should have been in a better position to urge that colonialism should be retained while people were trained and guided towards democracy if our own record had been rather cleaner in those respects.
I take the alternative view, very strongly indeed, that Asian and African nations are more likely to develop the kind of democratic tolerance in which we believe by acknowledging their right to independence, by giving them the opportunity of self-government, by the failures and disappointments which will come but from which they will grow and that

the degree of suffering which arises as a result of that policy will be much less than would arise by denying them what they are demanding and seeking. If the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South will not listen to me in urging that political philosophical argument, I hope that he will listen to the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) who, as Colonial Secretary, had vast experience of these problems and, with much more knowledge, has put forward the view which I have been expressing. I did not intend to rise merely to answer the hon. Member, although his constituency surrounds but does not throttle mine, because I am mostly concerned about the situation in Southern Rhodesia itself. I will speak briefly about it, if I may.
We are in this dilemma. We do not want to say any word tonight which will strengthen the position of Mr. Ian Smith, or which will rally his supporters to him and make the danger of a unilateral declaration of independence of Southern Rhodesia more real. I know the threat which exists, but I support my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn when she appeals to the British Government to use their influence to dissuade the Prime Minister and the Government of Southern Rhodesia from proceeding to a unilateral declaration by making publicly and abundantly clear what would be the result of a unilateral declaration: expulsion from the Commonwealth, expulsion from the United Nations, losing Imperial Preference, losing the preferences of G.A.T.T. and economic boycott by Zambia, Northern Rhodesia.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Is not the hon. Member mistaken? My impression is that Southern Rhodesia is not a member of the United Nations. There could not, therefore, be a question of expulsion.

Mr. Brockway: I very much appreciate the correction of my grammar—it was only my grammar. When I speak about expulsion from the United Nations, I appreciate that Southern Rhodesia at present is not a member. An independent country would expect to become a member of the United Nations. I ought not to have said "expulsion"; I should have said "exclusion". I am grateful to the hon. Member.
There would be not merely those things, but isolation in the whole Continent of Africa. Southern Rhodesia would become more isolated in the world than South Africa. If the white residents of Southern Rhodesia understood that and if the Government said it frankly and clearly, it would be likely to influence them from declaring unilateral independence.
It is tremendously important that this should be done tonight. If the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies will forgive me, that is why I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not here to say it with authority. I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not here to say it with authority. I hope that, having listened to our words, the hon. Gentleman will tell his right hon. Friend how important we consider it to be that this should be said immediately, because the critical debate is now taking place in the Southern Rhodesian Parliament.
Whilst we have to keep in mind the effect of our words upon the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia and the white population there, we also have to bear in mind the effect of our silence upon two other spheres of importance in the world which, if we are silent, may lead to a more serious breach with this country and with our Government than the breach which we are fearing from Southern Rhodesia.
The first of those two other spheres of importance in the world is the Commonwealth. What my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale has said is absolutely true. During the time of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, I had the privilege to meet nearly every Asian and African representative. I heard their views at the end of long days at the conference. It is not possible to exaggerate the depth of their feeling about Southern Rhodesia. Before the conference met, it was to be placed nearly last on the agenda, but it had to be placed first on the agenda after the international review because of the strength of the feeling. Indeed, it became the issue of the conference. I met the Commonwealth representatives as they left the conference day by day, and I know how they felt, and I know how they will feel now if the British Govern-

ment do not fulfil the hopes which were aroused by that conference.
The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said that the question of prisoners is an internal matter for Southern Rhodesia. I acknowledge this at once. But I was delighted when I heard from him in the House yesterday, and when I read in The Times this morning the words of Dr. Verwoerd, that the British Government had made a protest regarding the prisoners in the Republic of South Africa and had appealed for some clemency with regard to the sentences. How in the world can the Government intervene in the case of the Republic of South Africa, which we welcome, and then fail to intervene in the case of Southern Rhodesia, which is a part of the Commonwealth? I hope very much that the Government will, as a result of the discussions at the Commonwealth Conference, make an appeal for the release of Joshua Nkomo and his colleagues and the staying of the proceedings again Mr. Sithole, and thus create an atmosphere there which would be more hopeful for solution.
The other area of the world whose friendship to us is, in my view, even more important than the fate of the Government of Southern Rhodesia is the Continent of Africa as a whole. Its importance is shown by the way in which America and Russia are now competing for influence there. The cold war is ceasing to be largely a matter of armed preparations and is now a competition for the welfare and the support of the new nations. Undoubtedly, if we fail in this crisis to reflect the views of the Commonwealth Conference and of the United Nations on this issue of Southern Rhodesia, we shall be in very great danger of losing the sympathy, hope and confidence of the peoples of the Continent of Africa.
On these two grounds I make a very earnest appeal to the hon. Gentleman to urge the Minister and the Prime Minister to act in the spirit of what has been expressed tonight.

9.13 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies (Mr. R. P. Hornby): I have listened with very great care to every single word that has been spoken in this debate.


It is the most natural thing in the world that the House should wish to discuss the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference and the views that were expressed there about the progress of Southern Rhodesia towards independence. As, I think every hon. Member on both sides of the House is very well aware and as has been shown by everything that hon. Members have said in this debate, this is one of the most difficult problems that we have ever had to tackle in the history of transition from colonial empire to association of independent Commonwealth States. I do not for one second under-estimate the point made by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway), namely, the importance of the effects of our decisions in this field all over the rest of the world.
As I have said, I fully understand the very strong feelings that are to be found among many people in this House, in the country and in many parts of the world. But I hope that the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) will not take it amiss—because I do not mean it in that sense—when I say that I wish I could feel confident that her speech was helpful in bringing about the peaceful solution we all want. We would do well to heed the words of caution uttered by my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) although that, of course, does not inhibit hon. Members, as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) said, from speaking their feelings and speaking their minds as and when they think fit.
I am also sorry that the hon. Lady found it necessary to cast doubt on the motives of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in calling the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference and the manner in which he presided.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: It is very hard not to.

Mr. Hornby: I believe that there is a better and a longstanding tradition, which most hon. Members cherish, whereby we like to assume—on both sides of this House—that we share common enthusiasm for the Commonwealth association and a determination to see it prosper, however hard we may argue from time to time about details of policy. It would be helpful in getting our answers right if we adhered to that.

Mr. D. Jones: Would the hon. Gentleman say that that was the case two years ago?

Mr. Hornby: I can certainly say that it has been the cornerstone of the Government's policy to try to uphold the Commonwealth association to the utmost of their ability throughout the lifetime of this Parliament and its predecessors.
I remind the House of the context within which Southern Rhodesia was discussed at the Prime Ministers' meeting. As the House knows, it has been normal for some time for the progress of British Colonies towards independence to be reviewed at each Prime Ministers' conference, and it was under this heading that the question of Southern Rhodesia was raised this time. The Prime Ministers stated their views on the steps which might be taken to facilitate its progress to full independence within the Commonwealth.
I emphasise what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already told the House—and it was underlined in the communiqué—that we made it quite clear that the internal affairs of Southern Rhodesia were the responsibility of her Government. It is as well that I should re-emphasise that now because, from time to time in this debate, it seems that some hon. Members have forgotten it.
I also emphasise what the communiqué stated—that the authority and responsibility for leading her remaining Colonies to independence rests with Britain alone, and the other Prime Ministers fully accept that position. I make that point because that is, in effect, the answer to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, who made the plea for a Commonwealth policy for Southern Rhodesia. I take note of the points he raised, but in the communiqué he will find that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers fully accepted Britain's position.
The House is naturally anxious to know what initiatives we now propose to take and under what conditions it will be possible for Southern Rhodesia to obtain independence. First, let me say again what has already been made clear to the Southern Rhodesian Government: we regard sufficiently representative institutions as a pre-condition of the granting of independence. Secondly, we have


stated that it would not be possible to recognise any unilateral declaration of independence, a view which was shared by all the other Commonwealth Prime Ministers.
We have made this known not because we have any wish to utter threats against the Southern Rhodesian Government, or to anticipate hypothetical situations, but because there have been rumours from time to time about possible unilateral action, and it would clearly be tragic—I am sure that the whole House would agree on this—if any action of this kind were to be taken without the Government of Southern Rhodesia being fully aware of the attitude which the British Government would adopt.
The hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn and the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) suggested that we should here and now make public what we have said to the Southern Rhodesian Government about the consequences of any unilateral declaration of independence. I believe that it is a sound practice that correspondence between Governments should normally be regarded as confidential. Having the responsibility to handle these discussions, it must remain for my right hon. Friends and the British Government to reserve to themselves the decision whether it is necessary at this or any other time to make a public statement on so sensitive a matter.
The House knows that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has invited the Southern Rhodesian Prime Minister to come to London for talks. I am sure that it is the wish of all of us that he should agree to do so and that we shall soon hear when he will be able to come.

Mrs. Castle: Is the hon. Gentleman telling us that although a considerable time has elapsed since the Prime Minister wrote, there has been no communication whatever from Mr. Ian Smith? What time limit are the Government setting for the receipt of a reply before deciding what other action they might have to take?

Mr. Hornby: I think that the hon. Lady will recognise the desirability of our having these talks. We have issued this invitation and we very much hope

that the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia will be able to come.
Naturally, the House would like to know more of the proposals which we would then put before him, no less than the hon. Lady would like to know the precise date when he is coming. A number of suggestions have been made in the debate. For instance, it was suggested that the first step should be to convene a full independence conference with representatives of all parties in Southern Rhodesia. My answer to that suggestion is that we must first talk to the Southern Rhodesian Government and then, in the light of those discussions, consider how best we can go forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Barry rightly said that one can often achieve more through private discussion than through public speeches. I urge upon the House the wisdom of that.

Mr. D. Jones: I am not dissenting in any way from what the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) said, but the House has a right to know what we are to do if Mr. Ian Smith persists in declining the invitation to come to this country. I suppose that discussion would not then be possible.

Mr. Hornby: Again I urge on the House the advisability of dealing with the existing situation and not dwelling on hypothetical problems.
It has also been suggested that it would help very much to create the right atmosphere for such a conference if the African leaders now in detention could be released. I must remind hon. Members of what they know already, that this matter is the responsibility of the Southern Rhodesian Government. There is an important case now before the courts in Southern Rhodesia. The Southern Rhodesian Government are well aware of the views expressed in the Prime Ministers' communiqué and the appeal contained there. The Commonwealth Prime Ministers are also well aware that this is an internal affair.
If the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) had read on to just one sentence further than the sentence from the communiqué which he read out, which was:
The Prime Minister of Britain said that he would give careful consideration to all the views expressed by other Commonwealth Prime Ministers


he would have seen that it states:
At the same time, he emphasised that the Government of Southern Rhodesia was constitutionally responsible for the internal affairs of that territory …

Mr. M. Foot: I understand perfectly well that the Southern Rhodesian Government are responsible for the conduct of affairs in that Territory. The question of making an appeal is not in the same category. We want to know whether the Government have backed the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' appeal for the release of these prisoners. Are they giving full support to that appeal? How have they made their representations? What has been the response to the British Government's representation?

Mr. Hornby: We should be much wiser to stick to the words of the communiqué and remember what I have already said, that the appeal is well known to the Southern Rhodesian Government who have seen the communiqué. It is also well known to the House that this is an internal affair of the Government of Southern Rhodesia.

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman has referred, as did the Prime Minister, to a case which is pending before the courts. May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, when that case is over, the Government will make their representations for the release of the prisoners? We want to know what the Government are doing to impress the Southern Rhodesian Government with how important we think this question. If we leave it, and the Government of Southern Rhodesia do not hear anything but the communiqué, they will not know how important it is. Surely the hon. Gentleman can say that the Government give the fullest support to the appeal from the Commonwealth Conference and hope that the Government of Southern Rhodesia will act on it in the very near future?

Mr. Hornby: The hon. Member has asked what we shall do after the case before the courts has been heard. I say again, do not let us judge a situation which does not exist, let us deal with the existing situation. Secondly, I say

again to the hon. Gentleman that the Southern Rhodesian Government are perfectly well aware of the views expressed in the Prime Ministers' communiqué. Thirdly, I am sure that it would not be helpful for me to act on the points made by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Brockway: The Minister has been very good in giving way to questioners. Will he deal with the point which I raised? We welcome the fact that the Government have made an approach to the Government of the Republic of South Africa about their prisoners as a result of the Commonwealth Conference discussion. If we can make an approach to a Government who are independent and sovereign, why cannot we make an approach to a Government of a country still within the Commonwealth and for which we still have considerable responsibility?

Mr. Hornby: I take the point the hon. Member has made, but I put it to the House that on all these very sensitive questions—questions for possible discussion with the Southern Rhodesian Government—although I have listened to all these points with very great interest, it would not be right or helpful for me to go beyond what I have already said and forecast the points which the Prime Minister or the British Government might make in personal or private discussion.
There is not one of us who does not eagerly look forward to the day when Southern Rhodesia can join other independent members of the Commonwealth. I hope hon. Members will agree that I would not be helping matters at the present moment—I know this is not the view of every hon. Member present, but I remind the House again that the Government have on their shoulders the responsibility of handling these negotiations—if I anticipated in public the important and private talks my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister hopes to have with the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia. I firmly believe that we may by negotiation achieve the solution that every one of us wants, and which is very important to us all.

MENTALLY HANDICAPPED PERSONS

9.26 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: I wish to take the opportunity which all hon. Members have of raising points for discussion on the Bill. The point to which I wish to draw attention is the provision for mentally handicapped persons.
We may put these people into any sort of category, but for those who are less interested in categories and more interested in persons it is enough to say that I am talking about persons who, by reason of subnormal mentality, are unable to take their full economic place in the activities of the nation. They are also people who, to a greater or lesser extent, are a burden, a burden which has to be seen to be known and understood, on their parents or families who have to look after them. I am thinking not only of children, but more of those who have gone beyond school-leaving age.
It is not very long since the only public provision for these people was the madhouse. I do not think that it is any use for us at this time to look back and blame our forefathers for their inability to treat these people, because so much less was known then of the ways in which it was possible to help them than is known now. The same certainly cannot be said of us. We ought to blame ourselves to a very large extent having regard to what we now know of the ways in which these people can be helped. We ought to blame ourselves for what I can only call the extreme paucity of the provision which is made for them.
When there occurs in a family the tragedy of a subnormal child it very often happens that the whole of the energies of that family are devoted to the help of that child; and, in particular, the mother can become worn out partly because, more than anyone else, she feels the sense of tragedy and also because on her falls the burden of looking after the child physically. I do not suppose that there is any hon. Member who, in his constituency, has not come across a family which is completely ruined by the presence of one of these burdens, if I may so describe them, upon the family.
It is not only a question of the physical burden and the expense, but also the fact that holidays may become impossible for such a family. The parents, perhaps, do not wish to be seen taking about a child of mental sub-normality, and there are few places which will receive such a child with the sympathy and care which it needs. All this falls upon the family through no fault of their own, as far as is known; as far as we can tell, it is completely by chance.
I know that there are schools for these children, but in April the Minister of State for Education and Science said in public that there had been a constant waiting list of 10,000 for places in these schools in the last ten years—and 10,000 overburdened, perhaps wrecked families is a terrible sum of tragedy in this generation.
It is not that the families, into which these children are born, want to get rid of them. The most poignant part of the tragedy is that the members of the family who have the care of these children feel that they may well break down under the strain. Generally, they are completely devoted to the subnormal person and willing to make any sacrifices to look after him, but how much more able they would be to give the necessary care and supervision if, from time to time, they felt that there was some respite for them from the burden. I feel that the sympathy of the House should go out more to the parents and members of the family than to the sufferers themselves, who often have a gay and happy disposition.
Without doubt, the schools work wonders, and sometimes save these children from becoming the hopeless wrecks which they might otherwise become without the help of the schools. I am glad to say that in my constituency, in North Lincolnshire, the progressive Borough Council of Scunthorpe has been in the lead since the war in providing places of education and of training for those people. But when they are adults what happens to those who leave these schools and this training? Some of them may be able nearly to stand on their own feet. Perhaps they have sheltered employment in Remploy, or elsewhere, and they may have homes in which they can shelter and where some care and supervision is exercised.
But parents grow old and die and brothers and sisters, however willing they may be, have families of their own to look after and, perhaps, cannot accept the burdens that the parents have carried. Then the tragedy enters into its final phase, and the unfortunates go from lodging to lodging, perhaps losing their sheltered employment, and, finally, they come through misery into crime, prison, or hospital. That is the situation in which, at present, virtually nothing is being done. If the Joint Parliamentary Secretary can show that I am wrong in this, I shall be very glad to hear it. I am talking not of the children, but of the adults who are at the stage when they no longer have a home to shelter in.
The National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children is doing wonderful work. It has brought out a scheme whereby the parents contribute to insurance to look after these unfortunates when the parents themselves have gone. The Society has established an experimental hostel for training at Slough. This is a mere fleabite, and it is non-governmental. So far as I know, nothing is being done by the Government in this respect. I simply do not see how the community can any longer evade the responsibility of providing for this flotsam on the ocean of our so-called civilisation.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: I hope that my hon. Friend will not overlook the fact that hospitals for the subnormal cater for precisely the group he is describing. The subnormal person who has lived with a family, whose family has died, and who is then as an adult no longer able to live on his own resources is the commonest source of admission to hospitals for the subnormal amongst the adult population.

Mr. Mallalieu: I know. I am very glad indeed to acknowledge that there is that provision; but it is nothing like what I am talking about. I am talking about something which can take the place of the home and be a permanent umbrella, while making the most use of the capacities, which are often considerable, of subnormal persons. I know that I said that nothing was being done. I did not mean that absolutely

literally. It is, as I said also, a mere fleabite compared with what could be done for the benefit of the nation as a whole.
A publication was issued this year by Her Majesty's Stationery Office called, "Health and Welfare: The Development of Community Care". It is stated on page 112 that in 1963 in the London County area, which, I imagine, is as progressive as most, only 0·23 per 1,000 of population were in adult training centres, only 0·24 per 1,000 of population in junior centres, and none in an adult or junior hostel. As for the capital programme for the future for the mentally ill, in 1968–69 £63,000 will be spent on workshops and occupational centres and only £800 on social centres and clubs. How many clubs and social centres could be built or bought for £800? In 10 years the figures will apparently rise to only £189,000 and £1,500 respectively.
I submit that something must be done. We must have more hostels where these people can live and from which they can go to work. We must have more day hospitals of the excellent kind we have so near here in Westminster Hospital, in Vincent Square, where these people can go in and spend a happy day doing useful work and receiving useful training. This is the main burden of my remarks.
Apart from these provisions, we must at least begin to accept the idea that we must have communities for these people, communities in which they may live and work, apart from places like hostels where they live and, in favourable cases, go out to work in sheltered employment. If we do these things we will be saving thousands of families from ruin, and making the most use of the powers and skills of subnormal people.
I have been in contact with three Departments over this matter, Labour, Education and Health. I pay tribute to the Ministry of Labour for what it is doing under its sheltered workshops provisions and to the Department of Education for its provision of schools, and so on. I also pay tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary, who has been kind enough to write me several letters on this issue. I have detected increasing sympathy in successive letters from him and I believe that he understands the


need fairly well. I also believe that Parliament will approve of bold measures by the Minister of Health, so long as the needs are known and that the little that is being done is realised.
Just before the war fugitives from Hitler's tyranny came to these shores from Austria and elsewhere. One group comprised followers of Rudolph Steiner. They had to make their way here, a completely new life for themselves, and they decided that the best way to do this and, at the same time, return the hospitality they had received as refugees was to use the skill and knowledge they had gained from their leader and his teachings, and to care for the subnormal.
They begged, cajoled, preached and worked until they had gathered together sufficient good will and promised capital to acquire a small property. They lived in it as a community, having no money individually. The doctors among them practised, the writers wrote, the builders built, the carpenters made their furniture, the gardeners and farmers produced the food they needed and the teachers taught. Gradually, their community took shape. As it was taking shape they began to take in the mentally handicapped. These people managed to instil into the minds of the subnormal the feeling that they had a niche in that community. The skill they had or could be taught was used and these young handicapped people—young, but no longer of school age—were given the idea that they had a purpose in life.
The former Prime Minister's family was by no means unconnected with this good work and it was in one of the Macmillan Homes that the first village, as these communities are called, was started. There are now four such villages and they receive a deficiency grant under the provisions of the Ministry of Labour. In them trades are practised and the very highest quality of goods produced and sold on the open market. The young people feel that they are at home there, and they are doing useful work—no more burden on the State than is represented by the per capita deficiency grant.
This is what a band of devoted men and women refugees have done to show

us one possible way of dealing with this great problem in our midst. I do not say that it is the only way, but I feel that the Government would be very well advised indeed to study what has been done inside this community; to see what are the lessons that we can learn from it in order to deal with the problem ourselves.
I have the honour to serve on the council of the trust that tries to look after the activities of these people. I believe that it is doing a tremendous work of great usefulness to the country, and one that may very well have to be expanded and adopted by the country if we are fully to cope with the situation and make use of the potential there is in these subnormal people, who otherwise so often tend to rot.
From the letters of the Parliamentary Secretary I make so bold as to hope that he will set in train studies that will result in governmental action leading in a not-too-distant future to the removal of this blot upon the conscience of the nation—a blot which is hinted at in those terrible figures from that Government publication with the rather hopeful title—"Health and Welfare: The Development of Community Care". I hope that Government action will lead to the true development of community care.

9.47 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernard Braine): The hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) and I have recently exchanged correspondence on the subject of services for the mentally subnormal, and I have been well aware for some time of the keen interest he takes in this question. I know that he appreciates the nature of the problem he has raised tonight and that he is as anxious as I am, and as my Department is, to do whatever is best for those suffering from the misfortune of mental handicap.
I think we can take a modest pride in what is being done by the statutory and voluntary services for the handicapped generally. I noticed only yesterday in The Guardian that Dr. Jack Tizard, a New Zealander who has become the first Professor of Child


Development in the Institute of Education—thanks to the Spastics Society-had said that he preferred to work in this country because he thinks it is the most advanced in the world in helping the handicapped though, even here, there are immense tasks ahead.
Let me say at once that we, too, fully appreciate that there is still a long way to go before the services provided for the mentally subnormal are adequate throughout the country, but I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not mind if I say that I cannot possibly accept his charge that virtually nothing is being done for the group of handicapped people to whom he has made reference.
Indeed, it is interesting to note how much has been done in recent years. The number of people in local authority training centres for subnormal adults rose from 10,600 at the end of 1961 to 15,000 last year, and by 1974 the number of places will almost have doubled. The number of children in local authority junior training centres has risen from 13,000 in 1961 to 14,000 in 1963, and by 1974 the number will have increased to about 25,000.
The hon. and learned Member also referred to the distressing problem, which I think most hon. Members have encountered, of parents who have the care of a subnormal child, a heavy burden at the best of times and from which now and again they need relief. For this purpose, last year over 5,000 short-stay admissions to hospitals or local authority hostels were arranged. The best way of judging this is to bear in mind that we have to go back only a decade to find that the provision in these fields was very small.
In short, this is a developing service and a good deal is now being done in a number of different ways to meet the need of this particularly unfortunate group. The approach of the Camphill Village Trust settlements, to which the hon. and learned Member referred, is an interesting one and I can assure him that my Department will follow the progress of this and similar ventures very closely.
I am sure that the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) will agree that we have still much to learn about the best ways of providing for the needs of the mentally subnormal

and that there is undoubtedly room for experiment. I readily acknowledge the useful work which is being done by the Camphill Village Trust, and I am gratified to learn that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has been able to approve the three establishments of the Trust as sheltered workshops under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Acts. I understand that his Department has already paid £85,000 in deficiency grants and expects to increase its financial support as the number of workers in the three establishments increases.
I should make it clear, however, that we are not convinced that the need is best met through units which are separated from the community as a whole. This is where the hon. and learned Member for Brigg and I may part company. I fully appreciate the work that is being done in the Trust's settlements and I take the opportunity to acknowledge the devotion and single-mindedness of those who have made possible such an experiment in community life for the handicapped, but I ought to say that we cannot see the self-contained community as a blue-print for services for the mentally subnormal.
The aim of the statutory services is to ensure that as far as possible the mentally subnormal are able to live happy and, to the full extent of their abilities, useful lives as part of the general community. I agree with the hon. and learned Member that in the past, and not so many years ago, certain subnormal people, and especially those whose families could not or would not support them, would have found themselves drifting eventually into isolated institutions and there they would have remained for the rest of their lives. We are realising more and more the extent to which such people can enjoy and profit from contact with the wider world, a process which of course has been made easier by the welcome change which has taken place in public attitudes. Indeed, there are several hon. Members here tonight who have played a notable part in the education of public opinion in this respect in recent years.
Here I should like to pay tribute to the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and its local branches for the influence it has had on public


opinion generally. To secure the aim which I have mentioned of enabling the mentally subnormal to live lives as normal as their capacities permit within the community, local health authorities, in addition to their services for children, already provide training in their training centres for about 14,000 mentally subnormal adults, and in their plans for the development of their health services they aim to increase the number of places to about 29,000 in the next ten years. In spite of the obvious difficulties, training centres are provided in rural as well as in urban areas. I have visited quite a number of these centres in different parts of the country since I have been at the Ministry of Health, although, of course, I had some knowledge of the problem long before I arrived at the Ministry. I think most hon. Members at some time or other have come into contact with this problem and have been moved by it, and have sought in their limited ways to do something about it.
I have been greatly impressed by the work that I have seen done and the results achieved by people working in these centres, who bring such a remarkably high degree of skill, patience and devotion to their tasks. There is much talk nowadays about the selfishness and materialism of the age in which we live. Certainly the people who give their services in these centres are some of the most unselfish and dedicated people I have even encountered. It is a moving experience to visit them and talk to them, and I gladly pay my tribute to all who give of their time and energy to service in this challenging field.
The general aim in all these centres is to adjust the tempo to meet the needs and abilities of each individual. The House will appreciate that this does not mean that each person should be able to dictate his own speed; the object is to improve his performance but to achieve this at the pace which his abilities allow. When I talk about improving performance here, I am using the phrase in its wider social sense, not merely in the context of work output which is of secondary importance. The essence of the task is to enable the individual to live as satisfying and useful a life as his abilities allow.
I can tell the House from my observations that the atmosphere and the approach in the adult training centres are always sympathetic. The needs as well as the limitations of individual trainees are taken fully into account. There is no question of trying to create in these centres the precise conditions of industrial workshops. Indeed, the centres deliberately reject those types of work which, while they could be performed by the trainees, would not contribute to the basic objective of developing their potential to the maximum possible extent.
Another facility which local authorities are developing is the provision of residential accommodation for those who may need it. At present accommodation is provided for almost 1,400 adults either in local authority hostels or in other homes or in private houses. Here again, I have seen up and down the country some quite remarkable experiments. It would be invidious to mention authorities by name, but these are experiments being carried out by what I would call enlightened local authorities. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that a considerable expansion of local authority hostel accommodation is planned with a view to providing over 7,000 places by 1974. Many of these places will be for those who do not need to be in a hospital but who have no relative and no friend willing to look after them—precisely the category of person whom the hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind. Some of them, those who need more sheltered conditions of employment, may attend local authority training centres while others may be in normal employment.
Nothing is more satisfying in this context than to find someone who has been through a training centre, who has been placed in normal employment in a factory or firm outside, who has been accepted by his workmates, and who is settling down happily and leading a useful life. This is one of the triumphs. It is not always possible to achieve, but we are aiming all the time to encourage that sort of result.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is not the Minister slightly disturbed at the discrepancies between authority and authority? Of course, the good authorities are very good. Others, on the other hand, leave much to be desired.

Mr. Braine: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on a point which should cause us all concern. There is a discrepancy not only in this field but in other aspects of health and welfare, but one of the objects of the Blue Book on "The Development of Community Care" was to place in juxtaposition—it had never been done before—the long-term provision being made by all local health and welfare authorities over a decade. The essence of that plan was that it should be revised—we have just published the first revision—and that local authorities should be able to see what other authorities of comparable size were doing.
This is a matter of local government. There is, after all, a limit to the extent to which the central Government can dictate to local democracy. Although I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are regrettable discrepancies, he will find, I think, that these will tend to disappear as public opinion becomes more and more mobilised, as, indeed, it is becoming on these matters. Many local authorities, having seen in the plan the provision made by others, have started to revise their own ideas. Nevertheless, I agree that it is a matter of some concern that there are still discrepancies between authorities.
What I wanted to say about the hostel provision which is being made is that, whether a subnormal person is working in a training centre or is sufficiently advanced to be able to work in a normal place of employment, the availability of hostel accommodation means that he can remain within and have contact with the wider community.
My experience is that the dearest wish of many relatives of the mentally subnormal is to keep the family together. One very rarely comes across parents who are ashamed to take a subnormal child about. This is one of the most touching features of the whole subject. The fact is that the reverse is generally true, and the desire of the relatives of a mentally subnormal person is to keep him within the family circle. A great many families do succeed in keeping their mentally subnormal relatives in their own homes.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: The Mental Health Act, 1959, lays down that there should be special facilities arranged so that every child over the age of 5 who cannot take in the

ordinary educational curriculum can be taught to the extent that its mind will allow. Very little has been done in this direction throughout the country. Is the Ministry now looking at this matter? It is one of the problems about which parents of handicapped children are very concerned. The law now lays down that a child between the age of 5 and 15 who is unable to accept a normal education must attend for training to the extent of its limited mental ability, and if the parents do not send the child for such training they are in the same difficulty as parents of a normal child, but parents of such children cannot send them for training if the local authority has done nothing to meet the situation. What is happening about it?

Mr. Braine: The hon. Lady has raised a very important point. I cannot answer her question in detail without notice. Perhaps I should be able to do so, but I cannot. I know that in my county, for example, this has been a problem for some time, but the position is improving. Since the hon. Lady has asked me a specific question, I should like to go into the matter in a little more detail and, perhaps, to write to her about it. I am sorry that I cannot answer her question now. However, I know that quite a lot is being done and that enlightened local authorities are fully aware of the need in this regard.
I was speaking about keeping the subnormal member of the family within the family circle. Various local authority services are designed to make this possible and at the same time to give the families a degree of support in caring for their handicapped relatives. The advice and support of local authority welfare officers is available to such families and they can benefit from other local authority services such as home helps. These are services, of course, which are in an early and formative stage.
The value of a debate such as this is that it focuses attention on the need to improve these services. I know that it is not always possible to give help in the right way at the right time. Sometimes the strain on the family is too great. When it is no longer possible to keep the mentally subnormal person in his own home, local authorities aim to provide homes in their hostels so that the sub-


normal person can still remain in the ordinary stream of life in the general community.
We must also remember that some trainees at adult training centres are able to progress to open employment. Many who make such progress would surely prefer to do so and to remain with their families in the community with which they are familiar, indeed of which they are part, rather than to live a life somewhat away from the world, however protective and sympathetic the environment may be.
From what I have said, I hope that the House will see that my Department and local authorities are fully alive to the needs of the mentally subnormal and are making good progress in providing the necessary services for them.
On balance, we maintain our view that the lines of development of the local authority services are right, though there is scope for experiment in methods in a service which is still in a very formative stage. We want to see an increase in the provision of training centres; an increase in the number of places in these centres; the replacement of make-shift premises with purpose-built ones; and the separation of junior training centres from those for adults. We are also anxious to increase the provision of training courses for the staffs of training centres. The Training Council for Teachers of the Mentally Handicapped, which started work six months ago, is actively promoting the necessary training courses. For those mentally subnormal people who no

longer have a home of their own, we intend to increase substantially the provision of hostel accommodation where they can find, not only a home, but also the support and guidance of experienced social workers.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Can the hon. Gentleman indicate what he means by "substantially" increasing the provision of hostels?

Mr. Braine: I cannot be precise, but if the hon. and learned Member looks again at the figures which I have given tonight, he will see that the expansion is considerable. At the present rate of progress, I see no reason why he should not achieve these figures, because they are based upon what has been achieved in the last year or two. This is not an unattainable rate of progress when one bears in mind what has been done in the last year or two.
In these various ways, we are determined to do all we can to improve the lot of the mentally subnormal. I should like to think that in helping the weaker members of the community to overcome their disabilities and to find a useful niche in society, we are in a small way helping society to become more purposeful, more wholesome and more worthwhile. It is for this reason that I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for drawing our attention to this problem tonight and for the way in which he did so. I know what a generous person he is and I am sure that he will readily recognise that my Department shares his determination to continue to develop this extremely important sector of our social services.

RAILWAYS (CLOSURES)

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I should like now to raise the question of railway closures, both generally and with specific reference to my constituency. I have informed the Minister of the broad outlines of what I intend to say and I wish first to refer to the general issue. We have for some time been faced with a number of closures throughout the country, and a great deal of discussion has been going on in many quarters about how the closures impede not merely existing developments in the areas but possible future developments.
In the main, the closures affect rural areas and seaside resorts. The seaside resorts have complained bitterly, because a number of people face financial ruin in consequence of the closures of railways. Around the whole coast of Britain, the question of railway closures is causing great concern to those who are engaged in the catering trade, and in the rural areas the position is equally difficult.
The Minister will, I hope, have had the opportunity of examining the type of evidence which has been presented to the many hearings of the consultative committees. Heaven knows, he must be snowed under with representations made by all types of organisations, as well as the evidence which is submitted to the committee themselves, if the cases from my constituency are any yardstick. As each case is heard by a consultative committee, the Minister is inundated with representations ranging from those which are abusive of the whole system of closures to some which are justifiably pathetic pleading from people who face what is to them a desperate situation.
I am not a railway expert. I can only see what effect the closure of stations has in the rural areas. I can only see the possibility of many of our rural areas being entirely denuded of the people who live there.
I can only see an intense problem arising in the farming community in many areas. I am convinced that we cannot possibly hope to maintain continuity of labour in the farming communities if we take away from the rural areas the normal travel amenities. The

farming community makes a tremendous contribution to our economy. I do not know what the problem would be in terms of our balance of trade if it did not make the contribution that it does. Consequently, I wonder what the problem is likely to be in future if the Government bring about railway closures which adversely affect the supply of labour to the farming community.
I raise this question tonight because I believe that, having had to examine the evidence which has been presented to him, the Minister, if he has any political knowledge at all, must at this stage be seriously concerned whether the policy which he is pursuing is correct. I believe that after October he will not be in that office, and that the Labour Party, when it forms the Government, will be able to re-examine the whole policy. I notice the Parliamentary Secretary shaking his head. I expressed a hope; I did not make a categorical statement. However, I think that we shall then find ourselves on the other side of the House.
I am not an expert in these matters. I am not an expert on the issue of the consequences of railway closures. Having no expert knowledge, I have to go, like most other hon. Members, to those who are accepted as the experts. I informed the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) that I should be referring in substantiation of my case to a pamphlet which he wrote. I think he rather abused the trust embodied in giving such notice by informing the Whips so that the Whips would inform the Minister.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): The hon. Member is nearly right but not quite. My hon. Friend informed me himself, but too late for me to carry out any research.

Mr. Loughlin: The abuse of trust did not bother me, but unless we are confident that when we observe the courtesies of the House they will not be abused, the courtesies cannot be continued. I shall be very careful in similar circumstances before informing the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I merely told my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that I hoped he would give me


an opportunity to speak because I understood that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) was to quote me.

Mr. Loughlin: As far as I know the procedures of the House, the Minister has no control over the choice of speaker. That choice is vested in the Chair. The hon. Member has been in the House long enough, and if he does not know that on the Consolidated Fund Bill there is very little danger of one not being called if one stands up, all I can say is that he has been wasting many years here.
The hon. Gentleman's pamphlet is not an official Conservative Party publication. It is the twin of a publication from this side of the House. As far as I can ascertain it was written just prior to the last General Election.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: With good results.

Mr. Loughlin: This was ostensibly the Conservative view of transport, the policy on which the Government were asking for a mandate to govern the country, at least in respect of transport. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) said there were good results. That may be so according to him. I want to deal with the issues raised in the pamphlet as far as they relate to the railways. We are dealing with railway closures. I could certainly debate with the hon. Member for Macclesfield the advantages of nationalisation and whether it is better to have an integrated transport system.
The policy outlined in the pamphlet with regard to railway closures was presented to the people as the policy that would be pursued by the Government. I exonerate the hon. Member for Truro from blame. Having read the pamphlet and having seen his castigation of the Socialist concept of transport, I accept that he wrote the pamphlet in good faith and that he thought he was reflecting the policy that would be pursued by the Government.
The hon. Member wrote the pamphlet as chairman of the Transport Committee of the Conservative Parliamentary Party. He was the official spokesman of the Parliamentary Party as distinct from the

Government and consequently was writing to convince the people that the Conservative Party would do what it said it would do. What did he say about railways? He said that there were different schools of thought on the question of what should be done about the railways. He referred to those who said that we should adopt a liberal policy and commented:
Transport, they say, should be freed from all restrictions and obligations and the different transport undertakings should freely compete without restraint. The general assumption being that, provided all forms of transport are genuinely placed under equal competitive conditions, the traffic will gradually sort itself out between the different forms of transport on the basis of cost and service. Under this system, traffic which cannot justify itself commercially would cease to pass and any transport which could not pay its way would cease to exist.
That is the policy which has been adopted. It is the concept of Dr. Beeching—the concept that one has to make British Railways pay and that if one cannot make them pay one must close them down. The pamphlet went on:
Those who advocate such a policy forget their history. This country revolted against the logical harsh realities of laissez-faire long ago, and for many years British Governments of all political complexions have interfered with the laws of supply and demand in many directions. Because, for national reasons, we do not want to depend more than we can help on imported food, we give substantial subsidies to agriculture, thereby encouraging many people to stay in remote rural areas who would otherwise have drifted into the towns.
The effect of such a policy is to drive people from the countryside and to denude the farming community of labour.
The hon. Member for Truro devotes much of his study of the problem to what happens. He talks about the young lady in the countryside who cannot get a job locally and who goes somewhere else to get a job and whose family invariably follows her to the nearest industrial town. He talks about the difficulties of the village shopkeeper who cannot buy bulk supplies and who often has to travel himself to purchase supplies in small quantities. The hon. Gentleman concludes:
It would seem futile to spend large sums of public money on agricultural subsidies, rural water and electricity schemes if lack of transport causes depopulation.


There are many other quotations which I could give, but I will content myself with quoting the hon. Gentleman's conclusions. No one can complain if I quote his conclusions, for in effect the hon. Gentleman is saying in those conclusions, "If you do not read the rest of the pamphlet, here are my conclusions upon which, I think, the Tory Party will base its policy."

Mr. Robert Cooke: Does the hon. Gentleman take the view that the population must always at all times in the future, however long one looks ahead, remain in the same places as now? Does he not realise that there is bound to be some movement of population in future years?

Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that in debate after debate hon. Members on this side of the House have complained about migration from one area to another. Of course there has to be population redistribution. Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that rural railways ought to be closed so that people have to migrate? The point at issue is not whether people should remain where they are, but whether there should be a choice. There should be some choice about employment. I do not believe that the man who lives in Jarrow wants to go to the Midlands for a job, but he has no choice and he is driven to it.
We have now reached the position where we drive people out of certain areas not only because of the lack of jobs but because we do not provide rail transport. Is that the policy of the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke)? If it is, it should be well known in the City of Bristol.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I did not express a policy. I asked the hon. Gentleman a question. Does he take the view that the population as at present distributed must be forced to stay in the places where it now is? Does he not realise that in the next 50 or 100 years there must be some movement?

Mr. Loughlin: If the hon. Gentleman puts a question to me, surely he expects me to see the logical implications of it? What does he want me to say—"Yes" or "No"?

Mr. Robert Cooke: "Yes".

Mr. Loughlin: It is a question on a par with, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" He should save that sort of thing for his electioneering campaign, not put it in this House.

Colonel Sir Leonard Ropner: Would the hon. Member please say either "Yes" or "No" in reply to the question?

Mr. Loughlin: Well, really. I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman is serious or not. Is he really serious? The most charitable explanation is that which has just been advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow), who says the hon. and gallant Gentleman has had a very good dinner.

Mr. Julian Snow: Probably had a good dinner.

Mr. Loughlin: I want to come back to the conclusions in this pamphlet:
We should build as many roads as we can afford, while encouraging the railways to relieve the traffic on them as much as possible by efficient competition and, in so far as uneconomical public services are deemed to be necessary in the national interest, both by railway or road, we must be prepared to pay for them as taxpayers …
I pause there. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that I am being unfair I will continue the quotation.

Mr. G. Wilson: Please continue it.

Mr. Loughlin: … either by direct grants for particular railway or road services or, maybe, by tax remission to the providers of road services.
This is precisely the point we are arguing tonight. We are arguing that the Government ought to put into effect the policy which the hon. Gentleman in his capacity as chairman of the Conservative Parliamentary Party's Transport Committee advocated to the electors of this country as the policy on which the Government should be elected. I conclude this part of my comments by saying that the Government are being quite consistent with their whole record when they argue one thing at a general election and practice a policy which is diametrically opposed to the programme on which they were elected.

Sir A. V. Harvey: For the benefit of those who have not read this very interesting book—and we do not all have it with us—would the hon. Gentleman go through the whole book? Let us have the whole book.

Mr. Loughlin: I am quite prepared to do that.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Hear, hear.

Mr. Loughlin: I am prepared to read it, and to read it slowly, and examine it chapter by chapter as we go along, because I am here all night—

Mr. John Rankin: Not all night?

Mr. Loughlin: I know hon. Gentlemen want to come to the next subject for debate and it would be unfair to take so much time. I remind hon. Gentlemen that I said I was not going into the question of nationalisation, except what the hon. Gentleman said about the rail transport services, and I think it fair, when the pamphlet deals with one aspect of it, to quote it, provided the author of the pamphlet agrees with me that I have been reasonably fair in my quotation.
This policy of railway closures has, of course, affected my own constituency. My constituency has now become completely denuded of railways.
I would accept the position more easily if there were equity about the closures. While my constituency is completely denuded of railways, there is the closure of the Hereford line and certain stations on the Gloucester—South Wales line, vitally affecting some of my constituents. Within a short distance we have the farcical situation that the Badminton station, which has two or three members of staff and about two trains stopping there in a day, is to remain open. There is no economic reason for that. If it were done solely for the villagers of Badminton, I should be very glad and would applaud the Minister, but it is retained for the will and pleasure of the Duke of Beaufort and junketings which go on at Badminton Horse Show. This is stupid feudalism—

Mr. Robert Cooke: Will the hon. Member allow me—?

Mr. Loughlin: No, I am not giving way again to the hon. Member for Bristol,

West. He came into the House for a few minutes and intervened three times. Then he went out and came back again. He had hardly resumed his seat before he wanted to intervene again. He will have an opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, after I have finished my speech. If he does so, I shall stay and listen to him and try to intervene as many times as he has attempted to intervene in my speech.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) is anxious that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) should "belt up"—that was his expression—about the duke.

Mr. Loughlin: That is a very elegant expression.
There was a proposal to close the station, but the duke decided to petition just as my constituents decided to petition the consultative committee, and I as a Member of Parliament petitioned the Minister and advanced the grounds on which my station should remain open. My petition went unheeded. So did the petition of the humble farm labourers of my constituency, but the petition of the Duke of Beaufort was not unheeded. His station, so far as I know, is to remain open for ever and a day.
The stations of Grange Court, Blaisdon, Northwood Green and Oakle Street cater for a small number of people. I do not suggest that enormous numbers of residents are eager to jump on trains there. The trains have provided the only means of transport in the area, and there is no possibility of providing an adequate alternative by means of buses.
My constituents decided to oppose the proposed closures. They are not all members of the Labour Party, and it is doubtful whether many of the villagers voted for me at the last election. They will certainly vote for me in the next. It is the Minister's fault, and I say with confidence that he has handed me all the votes I need for the next election. Whatever their political point of view, I can find no one in the area who supports these closures. And since the Minister has received protests signed by almost everyone in the area, there can be no suggestion of this being a political agitation. When I heard that they proposed to object to the proposed closures,


I agreed to meet my constituents, and when we discussed the matter I did not express too many political opinions.
The Minister says that alternative bus services can be provided, but has he considered the roads in my constituency? A bus is 8 ft. 2½ ins. wide. Many of the roads in the area are 9 ft. wide at most in parts. The maximum width of road there is 15 ft. I often drive down these roads; I call them lanes. Usually when I meet another car one of us must reverse into a wider section of the road. Imagine two buses meeting. Apart from this difficulty, the area is subject to flooding, making the maintenance of regular bus services extremely difficult.
Not only the Minister but the Prime Minister has said that if railway stations are closed, certainly in Scotland, alternative transport will be provided. I recall the right hon. Gentleman saying one Question Time that railway stations would be closed in Scotland only if alternative transport facilities were made available.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: Where necessary.

Mr. Loughlin: Of all the stupid remarks! Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to get to his feet, instead of saying something while crouching, and say what he means by "Where necessary"? It does not mean anything. He cannot explain it. The Prime Minister said that he could give an assurance to this House that he would not close railway stations in Scotland and in England and Wales unless there was provided an alternative transport service—

Mr. Galbraith: I must put the hon. Gentleman right on this point. I was trying to correct him in regard to the quotation. The wording has always been "where necessary." If there were only one person it would clearly not be regarded as necessary. That was the point I was trying to bring to the hon. Gentleman's attention.

Mr. Loughlin: It would be necessary if it were the Duke of Beaufort, but it would not be necessary if it were one of my farm workers. The hon. Gentleman may be perfectly correct in completing the quotation of what the Prime Minister said, but that does not make

it any the more intelligible. We have had so many of his quotations that did not make sense, anyway.
I should like the House to know the alternative bus service agreed upon by the consultative committee. Let me turn to the Annex, Part III, where it talks of additional bus services, and Item 5 contains what the committee considers is the transport service alternative to the existing rail service:
Services in each direction between Blaisdon and Gloucester to call at Grange Court and Oakle Street as follows:—
Ex Blaisdon-Gloucester, Monday-Saturday approximate starting times 7.55 a.m. and 5 p.m. Wednesdays and Saturdays only approximate starting times 10 a.m.
So there is an additional bus on Wednesdays and Saturdays.
Then we come to the return journey:
Monday to Saturday, approximate starting times"—
this is from Gloucester to Blaisdon:
4 p.m. and 6 p.m. Wednesdays and Saturdays only approximate starting time 10 p.m.
Hon. Members will observe the wonderful ingenuity of the people who have recommended this bus service. A number of people in this area travel to London—business people. I had one of them on the telephone on Sunday night at ten minutes past ten urging me to do all I possibly could to try to get the Minister to change his mind because of the effect of the closures on the business people in the area. They are not all farm labourers.
The fast train to London leaves Gloucester at about 8.15. The bus from Blaisdon leaves at 7.55. According to the bus company, the journey will take an hour, so that the bus from Blaisdon will arrive at Gloucester at 8.55—far too late for the fast London train. But the better one is the 5 p.m. from Blaisdon. This, apparently, is one of these buses designed to allow people in the countryside to travel to Gloucester to have a bit of entertainment—5 p.m. at night. It is a bit early, I know. But if they travel on the 5 p.m. bus from Blaisdon to Gloucester they get into Gloucester to see the last bus from Gloucester to Blaisdon go out at 6 p.m.
This is the alternative transport which the Prime Minister said we would be entitled to have before he closed the railway stations. This does not involve


just one passenger and I do not want the Parliamentary Secretary therefore to jump up again and ask if there is one or one and a half passengers. On Wednesdays and Saturdays the Minister is very generous. He will let the people in Blaisdon and Grange Court go to Gloucester at 10 o'clock in the morning and return at 10 o'clock at night. They can go to the pictures on Wednesday and Saturday, but he is not going to stand for their going on Monday or Tuesday. I suppose that this is a matter of the man in Whitehall knowing best.
What is the purpose of having a late bus from Blaisdon to Gloucester at 5 p.m. if the last bus from Gloucester to Blaisdon is at 6 p.m.? On the ground alone that the Government have not provided a reasonable alternative transport service, the closure of these stations is out of accord with a direct promise made by the Prime Minister to the House. This is not a question of one passenger but of a number of people who live in rural areas.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary explain to me how my constituents are to go backwards and forwards to Gloucester when this is the alternative bus service? Immediately the House rises for the Recess I want to go to my constituents to explain this to them. I cannot do so unless the Minister first explains it to me, because it does not make sense to me. This is an important question for me. Many women, many sick people, including hospital out-patients, live in this area. How are they to manage. There are many old people and it is a bit frightening for them to have to walk down country lanes when the bus returns at 6 o'clock. This is a human problem. It may not be a mammoth one. It may not seem significant to the intellectuals but it is to me because I know these people. They are not digits to me. They are human beings. How does the Parliamentary Secretary expect these people to deal with their every-day affairs? How is the young woman with one or two youngsters and a baby in a pram get her family on the bus? Is the Minister saying that because the young woman happens to live in the country, she can stay there as far as the Government are concerned, because they are not prepared to provided the services to which she is entitled?
Let me now deal with the problem from the point of view of the farming community. The N.F.U. has made representations to the Minister on this issue and states that there is a grave danger that within a short time the farmers in this area will have no labour left. Another problem that the Minister ought to consider is what is to happen to the casual fruit pickers. How are they to get around the area? Does the Minister suggest that the Government are indifferent to the needs of the farming community? Have the Government decided that they can do without the farmers in this locality? I must remind the Parliamentary Secretary that thousands of farming areas will be involved in this issue if the present policy is pursued.
I apologise for speaking for so long, but I tell the Minister that his job is to administer the transport system. He seems to think that he can do it in a way which is different from the normal method. A short time ago he was acting as a well-publicised glorified mechanic. There are many vehicles owned by private enterprise, over 50 per cent. of which have been certified as unfit to be on the roads. If one had been owned by British Road Services, a scream would have gone up pretty loudly. The Minister's job is to look after the Ministry of Transport and not to float around here and there opening every tinpot road and lying on the ground as if he were examining motor vehicles. He cannot do it. He is not a skilled mechanic; and besides, however inadequate his salary may be, we do not pay him to do jobs which carry a much lower wage.
I tell the Parliamentary Secretary, who has to face this barrage from my hon. Friends and myself tonight, that he has my sympathy. The person who ought to be on the Government Front Bench should not be the Parliamentary Secretary answering for the mistakes of his master; it ought to be his master. If the Parliamentary Secretary cannot answer honestly and truthfully the questions which have been raised about the lack of alternative transport, which is out of accord with the promise made by the Prime Minister, he has the responsibility to go to the Minister of Transport and ask him to face this issue squarely and, before he closes the


stations in my constituency, at least to agree to provide an adequate alternative transport service.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I am not going to enter into an argument with the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) about the adequacy or otherwise of the transport service in the Gloucester area. It is an area that I knew well during my 20 years service with the Great Western Railway, although I admit that I have not been there in the last 20 years.
I would only observe, with regard to his constituency case, that he does not seem to have understood the system by which the present railway closures are taking place. There is no need for him to quote the Prime Minister. The factors which the Minister was going to take into consideration were explained in detail by the Minister himself in the House the previous March on the Beeching Report, when he gave in detail all the considerations that he would bear in mind when the railway closures took place. He particularly mentioned the adequacy of roads and the adequacy of bus services.
As I understand it, the system is that after the railway has made its statutory notice asking for a closure, if objectors raise a point, the case goes before the transport users' consultative committee, which has to advise on the question whether there is hardship, and only on that question. If the committee says that there is hardship, the matter comes back to the Minister, who has to decide what to do, whether there are adequate roads, whether there is an adequate bus service, and so on. What is more, if the bus service, the schedules of which are settled not by the Minister but by the bus company, with the authority of the traffic commissioners, is not adequate, one can go a second time to the T.U.C.C. This has actually happened in my constituency in connection with a railway closure on the Chacewater—Newquay branch. The line was closed, with the condition that there should be a better bus service. When the local people complained that the better bus service had not been provided, there was a second hearing by the T.U.C.C.

Mr. Roderic Bowen: But dealing only with hardship.

Mr. Wilson: Yes; any other considerations are dealt with by the Minister.

Mr. Loughlin: I appreciate that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) has a very low opinion of my intelligence. I gather that from what he has retailed to the House. I am very well aware of the procedure and of the function of the transport users' consultative committee. The fact is that the Minister has given a very comprehensive decision in this case. He stipulates that the bus services shall be as they are set out in the Annex, Part III. The point is that they are totally inadequate, even though the Minister stipulates them. Apparently, on the basis of the evidence which we have submitted, the Minister considers that it it an adequate bus service. What may happen in the future is an entirely different matter.

Mr. Wilson: With respect, I have not seen the papers—

Mr. Loughlin: What papers?

Mr. Wilson: The decision of the Minister. I am judging only from what the hon. Gentleman has said in his speech. However, I do not want to enter into an argument about that. I was pointing out to the hon. Gentleman, and I think it might help him, that if the bus service which has been suggested is not adequate he can still go again to the T.U.C.C.

Mr. A. R. Wise: This procedure takes a long time, and a great deal of hardship can still be caused. This has happened in my part of the country, since the closing of the line from Banbury. We have not got an adequate bus service, and people are having to take taxis from and to Banbury while the appeal to the T.U.C.C. is hanging fire.

Mr. Wilson: I had better not get involved in that case as well.
I wanted to say a word about the pamphlet which I wrote in 1959, from which the hon. Gentleman quoted. It was not a Conservative Party pamphlet at all. It was prepared for the Road and Rail Association as a companion pamphlet to one which was written by Mr. Ernest Davies, a former Member of the House, as the hon. Gentleman said.
The hon. Gentleman said that it represented the election policy of the Conservative Party. In fact, it was headed, "A Conservative's view", and it was merely my personal view of the policy which should, in my opinion, be pursued. Re-reading it, I am astonished how near to the facts and how near to subsequent policy I got. The pamphlet was published before the Report of the Select Committee on the Nationalised Industries, under the chairmanship of the then Member for Blackpool, North, now Lord Aldington, it was published before the Government White Paper on transport policy, and, of course, long before the Beeching Report.
Many of the things that I said have turned out to be accurate, and I think that they are worth quoting. The hon. Gentleman quoted one passage in this pamphlet about laissez-faire. I was referring to the Liberal Party. The Conservative Party's policy is not one of laissez-faire, and I said so in terms in this pamphlet. I pointed out that we could not leave things entirely to find their own level. I said that if we interfered with the laws of supply and demand, transport, like water, would not find its own level. It would form a bog. It would get into a mess.

Mr. Loughlin: Did the hon. Gentleman say, "if we interfered"?

Mr. Wilson: I said:
All these actions have diverted the natural flow of traffic and are not those of a true liberal society (in which we are not living). We cannot be liberals in transport only.
If the free flow of transport is obstructed without being channelled, like water, it will not find its own level, but form a bog!
I said that as we were interfering with many things we could not adopt a laissez-faire policy.
At a later stage in the same pamphlet, I anticipated the sort of policy which has since been pursued. I said:
The railways must be run as strictly commercial undertakings on a profit-making basis … and, secondly, that each particular unprofitable service, which the Government requires to be continued, shall be paid for in whole or in part by a grant out of public funds …

Mr. Loughlin: That is what I was saying.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that it was advocated by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. The Select Committee said that there should be a subsidy for an individual line if it was necessary to continue such a line in the national interest. The Government's White Paper which followed that expressed doubts about that policy, but said that it was being considered. A subsequent White Paper on the financing of the nationalised industries pointed out that that policy was not accepted and said that instead there would be a policy whereby, if a nationalised industry was required by the Government to undertake any action which caused it to lose money, that would be taken into consideration in fixing the target at which to work. That is the present position with regard to the railways. If a railway closure is refused by the Minister of Transport, and in consequence the railways are forced to face a loss, that matter is taken into consideration in arriving at the railways' total target.

Mr. Bowen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree, therefore, that if the Minister of Transport agrees to keep open a passenger service against the wishes of the Railways Board, this will not involve any financial liability on the Board?

Mr. Wilson: That is certainly the intention, and it is a logical policy. I am not a member of the Government, and never have been, so I cannot give the details of why that decision was made, instead of the policy advocated by the Select Committee, but I understand that it would have caused unfortunate precedents for the other nationalised industries, particularly the coal-mining industry, if the Government had subsidised piecemeal each particular railway line that it was desired to maintain in the national interest. We would have got into a tangle financially in other directions if, instead of taking a general target, we had subsidised individual lines.

Mr. Loughlin: I have a great deal of sympathy for the hon. Gentleman. I know that he is trying to apologise. All that I ask him to do is to re-read the passages that I quoted and then, when railway closures are discussed, to come over to this side of the House and vote with us.

Mr. Wilson: Not at all. A railway service cannot be run economically on a pattern which was designed haphazardly in the days of horse transport. Perhaps I have not elaborated the case sufficiently in my pamphlet, but I ask the hon. Member to read some of my later writings of 1959.
It is beyond dispute historically that the railways grew up haphazardly in an age of horse transport and that we could not expect the pattern of railways to be the same now as it was 100 years ago. There are bound to be changes. For that reason, there will have to be a revision. Railways are not the only possible transport, as my pamphlet from which the hon. Member quoted indicated. I referred there to the fact that road and rail transport must be considered together as the principal means of inland transport.

Mr. Bowen: What the hon. Member is saying amounts, does it not, to the fact that there may be circumstances in which a railway should be kept open for social considerations and that adequate arrangements are made to deal with that situation, so that, therefore, the ultimate decision of the Minister should be made upon social and not economic considerations?

Mr. Wilson: Certainly, that inference can be drawn. In his statement in March, my right hon. Friend the Minister specifically referred to that, as he did also in some of the subsequent debates when he spoke about surveys concerning the seaside towns and other places about which special considerations might arise. There are references to it also in the Beeching Report, in which Dr. Beeching observed that there might be instances, although perhaps not many, when it was desirable for some reason to maintain a railway although it was uneconomic.
That has never been disputed, except by those sections of the Press, and by some hon. Members opposite, who like to represent this side of the House as wishing to close railways willy-nilly whether or not they are needed for any special purpose, simply because they are not making a large profit. That has never been the position. It certainly was not the position envisaged in my pamphlet or in any subsequent White Paper or report. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West really was not supported

in his argument by quoting from my pamphlet, which I advise him to read again.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Julian Snow: I have the honour to represent a constituency within the vast conurbation of the West Midlands which is a substantial overspill receiving area. I am extremely pleased to have caught your eye this evening, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, having sat unavailingly through three consecutive debates on agriculture and three on health in an effort to represent my constituents points of view. I am advised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) that the rules of order of this debate allow a Member some flexibility. Nevertheless, throughout what I have to say there will be detected a thread relating to transport.
Yesterday, in other proceedings of this House, there was a reference to the economic consequences of a greatly honoured right hon. Gentleman. When the history of this Parliament comes to be written, somebody should write a book about the transportation consequences of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples). In the West Midlands conurbation, I can only describe the position as developing towards what appears to be organised anarchy.
The needs of the great population which is being transferred from Birmingham to the peripheral overspill receiving counties in the West Midlands additional to the existing population have been wholly and utterly neglected by the Government, not only in transport but in all the other services which the community needs. There are inadequate schools, inadequate forethought regarding the provision of telephonic and postal services, and inadequate roads, and now, to cap everything, there is a threat to close some essential stations. I do not think that I am being either indiscreet or unfair when I say that when some of us met Dr. Beeching here he agreed with me that in making his proposals for my part of the West Midlands, and more particularly his proposal for the closure of Rugeley Station, he had not taken into account either the overspill agreement—which is between the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, the Staffordshire County Council and the various receiving authorities—or the


specific clause in the agreement which related to the shifting of industry from Birmingham coincidental with the shifting of population. Indeed, he said, quite rightly, that it was not within his brief so to do.
What I cannot understand is that in all our debates on propositions from this side of the House that there should have been not merely a Beeching plan, but an integrated transport plan, I have yet to hear any real argument that the single Beeching plan was either an answer to or logically met the problem of the West Midlands. In the decade ending 1970 there will be shifted into my constituency from Birmingham between 35,000 and 45,000 people, and this example can be repeated all round the nucleus of the conurbation, which is Birmingham.
Listening to the remarks regarding the failure to provide alternative services, I cannot help noticing a remarkable fact, that whereas, a few days ago, we hurried through constitutional legislation for Malta—it was inadequately considered, in my respectful judgment—the function and operational rules of the transport users' consultative committees have not been changed since the inception of those organisations. Whereas they are supposed to take into account the interests of passengers, whether by road or by rail, the sorry fact is that as organising entities they are incapable of viewing the problem as a whole.
Also, we cannot ignore the rôle that the traffic commissioners have to play in all this. The development of vast new estates under the overspill plan and the consequential transport requirements of the population have simply not been met. Great new housing estates opened up by local authorities and private developers remain, so far as transport is concerned, largely ignored. In trying to get to their work, men have to use cars on roads which, 20 years ago, such as the roads into Birmingham, were hopelessly inadequate and are now death traps. Mothers and their families wanting to get to the shops, to the doctor, or elsewhere, find themselves having to walk inordinate distances, very frequently on roads which are dangerous and without footpaths.
Yet when, for instance, a relatively small transport operator wants to modify

his licence to carry passengers in such a way as to cope with increased or changing demand, he finds himself up against a bureaucracy in the traffic commissioners and even hostility from the transport users' consultative committee, apparently both of them engaged in retaining the status quo.
I cite as an example the case of a transport operator in my constituency who recently applied for the removal of a restriction on one of his express licences. I have referred this case to the Minister already for his observations and the Minister has sent me what was, in fact, the decision of the traffic commissioners. It is obvious from this decision that there has been very little intimate survey of the new requirements for transport arising from this overspill development.
Incidentally, on a previous occasion, this transport operator, in proceedings before the same traffic commissioners—he is not what I would call an extremely large operator—was obliged to pay an additional charge of £69 for the conveyance of an inspector from Barrow-in-Furness to Birmingham to attend the hearing. When I protested to the Minister about this sort of charge, I was told in so many words that there was no other person suitable in Birmingham. But there are millions of people in the conurbation. I cannot be convinced that someone with objective views could not have been found among them to save my constituent that sort of charge.
This is not the only effect. There is the effect on the countryside, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), of this long period, now coming to an end, of Conservative anarchy in transport. It is affecting the countryside in all sorts of ways which disrupt life.
Here we have a situation where an industry like agriculture is being seriously and adversely affected by the inadequacy of transport. The public are bored to tears with these committees and investigations. People see their lives being damaged and inconvenienced by the inability to provide their families, particularly the womenfolk, with transport facilities which would enable them to have some of the comforts, some of the


shopping facilities, some of the little enjoyments of life which they could obtain in adjacent towns.
I was in the small village of Elford last week and had an experience which could be duplicated by every hon. Member. I learnt that the last bus gets back there from the adjacent town about 1½ hours before the end of the last cinema performance. I do not suppose that we should judge our civilisation on our ability to attend cinemas, but in the countryside this sort of thing means a lot. It used to be argued—it is no longer true—that farm workers and their families did not want these relatively sophisticated things of life. The other day I was reading an agricultural report, written in 1956, which said that there was no big demand for agricultural workers and their families for nice, modern clothes and nice, modern furniture. But television and other media have increased the taste in the countryside for slightly more sophisticated things.
The virtual cutting off of workers in the countryside is one of the results of the anarchy being produced and increased by the proposed rail closures. Another proposal for my constituency is the closing of the railway station near Lichfield on the Wolverhampton—Burton upon Trent line. Opinions may differ as to whether any communication with Burton upon Trent should be jeopardised. Personally, I believe that Burton upon Trent is a sort of Midlands Mecca. However, this line is being closed to passenger traffic in an area where many houses have been built, even since the Beeching Report, and where a little knowledge of the planning applications of individuals and the plans of the planning authorities would show what traffic is likely in the next few years.
In my constituency there is a perfectly appalling case of the threatened eviction of not one but probably nine families from one farm at the end of the harvest. Two of them have worked for one farmer for 25 years. What has this to do with transport? There is a drift from the land which we who represent agricultural constituencies deplore. We accept that there may be a reduction in the labour force because of mechanisation, and so on, but the greatest single factor militating against the maintenance of the agricultural population is the fear of eviction and the

attitude, to quote my hon. Friend, that people are mere digits.
Some weeks ago, I put a series of Questions to the Minister of Agriculture about the failure of Staffordshire to attract and register an adequate number of agricultural apprentices. I elicited the information that it was a markedly smaller number than that of adjacent counties. The registration of these apprentices comes under a scheme which was the subject of legislation. I discovered that the numbers of apprentices registered as at 30th April last year were: Staffordshire, 6; Cheshire, 102; Worcestershire, 19; Derbyshire, 13; and Warwickshire, 102. I asked the Minister what explanation he had, whether it was because of lack of enthusiasm for the scheme by one of the principals in an agricultural college in Staffordshire, and he refused to give me an answer.
It may be lack of enthusiasm by a principal of an agricultural college; it may be lack of enthusiasm by farmers to give day release to agricultural apprentices; it may be failure to provide reasonable transport facilities for the families; it may be fear of eviction from their houses, such as is exemplified by the case I have given. But my personal view is that it is the general level of life in which transport plays so large a part which is the main issue.
I cannot understand why it would not have been possible for the transport users' consultative committees to have the functions changed if it was considered desirable by the Government to hurry through a constitutional change, such as in the case of Malta. Some members of the West Midlands T.U.C.C., who are not of my political persuasion, have told me that there is a bias against the countryside, and if there is not bias there is rank ignorance. The fact is that neither the traffic commissioners nor the T.U.C.C's seem conscious of the requirements under the overspill system and agreement, and I would hope that the Minister, when he replies, would give some indication that this transport anarchy, this desert, so far as amenities are concerned, can be reviewed, and these agencies changed so as to promote not only greater knowledge of, but a greater interest in, the area which I have described.
It does not only go for transport, this sort of thing; it goes for the medical


services, the need for health centres in these towns which only recently were little, rather unimportant towns which are now becoming substantially larger, whose communications are becoming more complicated. These towns do need, and are justified in demanding, improved transport services.
I heard the other day, quite by accident, that the Corporation of Birmingham, with the full authority of the Minister of Transport, was putting into operation a West Midlands traffic survey. An hon. Friend of mine, a Birmingham Member, showed me a letter isssued by the Town Clerk of Birmingham. I had not heard of this before, but through my own constituency—an overspill area—run these arteries which feed into Birmingham, hopeless and congested as they are.
I made inquiries from the Staffordshire County Council and found that it is considering a traffic survey for Staffordshire. This is madness. If we look at the map and the congestion of population, the gradual closing together of towns which, 50 years ago, could be fairly well identified as single units, we see that the idea of regionalism, which many people are talking about now, is becoming an absolute necessity. It affects not only housing, population and the postal services, but more than anything else it affects transport.

11.35 p.m.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: I have a rather different story to tell from that told by the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow). For 15 or 16 months I have been in suspense about the proposed closure of the Manchester-Buxton line, which passes through the north end of my constituency of Macclesfield at Disley. I sympathise very much with the hon. Member in his problems, but, unlike other lines mentioned tonight, the Manchester-Buxton line was a commuter line serving thousands of people daily and going on to Buxton 11,000 feet above sea level. It would have been impossible, without the line, for those people to get into Manchester on a very busy road or in snow. Properties in the Disley area have to some extent depreciated in value and people have had to

consider changing their residence to nearer their work.
All the neighbouring local authorities organised an appeal to the consultative committee a month or two ago. I congratulate all those who took part on their preparation of their case. Other hon. Members should note that the preparation and presentation of the case has a great bearing on the result, and I congratulate my constituents who prepared the various lists submitted. They worked very hard. I have never had such big protest meetings in the constituency in the 19 years I have had the privilege of representing it. The Minister will recall that some months ago I warned him that if the railway were closed I should be in a very embarrassing position and might well have to fight the election as an independent Conservative. I have been spared that ordeal, because the users' committee justified the complaint of hardship and the Minister of Transport has agreed that the railway shall remain open.
My purpose tonight is to thank the Minister for giving this case such consideration. All my constituents are most grateful. I hope that other hon. Members, in similar circumstances, will consult the councils and others who cooperated in North Cheshire and West Derbyshire about the way in which they presented their case. It might help them, too.

11.38 p.m.

Dr. Horace King: I wish that I could follow the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), whom we all respect, in his success story. Most of the experiences which we have had on this side of the House show that although we have taken the care in presenting the case which the hon. Member obviously took, although we have recruited all sources of local opinion and although we have even formed the view that we had persuaded the transport users' consultative committee that our case was good, we have failed in the objective of preserving a service which we thought was vital.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) on his powerful speech. I wholeheartedly agree with his main contention and the graphic picture which he painted of the vital necessity of railways


to people in the countryside. I should like to underline a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) about the transport users' consultative committee. I wish that the various committees in the country doing this job had been advised to take note of more than hardship. Important though hardship is, other factors, too, are involved in the closing of a railway. Part of this Government's trouble is that in many fields they have been tackling problems piecemeal without attempting to get an overall picture.

Mr. G. Wilson: Is that not a rather curious criticism from a Socialist? Surely the position is that the Minister decides on the national policy, taking all the various factors, one of which is hardship, into consideration, and on hardship a report is made to him by the committee. Surely the hon. Member would not have the committee form the policy. That must be a matter for the Government.

Dr. King: The hon. Gentleman must have a very curious idea of Socialism. Socialists believe in social democracy. One of the essential features of social democracy—indeed, any democracy—is participation. The hon. Gentleman is wrong when he thinks that the Socialist wants everything to be decided by Ministers. Any worth-while Minister will fortify himself with the opinions of various groups of people he consults. All I was suggesting was that the consultative committees should have wider terms of reference so that they could obtain firsthand information from people on the spot and so obtain a complete picture of all that the Minister ought to know in making a decision.

Mr. Bowen: Time and time again the transport users' consultative committees have expressed the view that they would have welcomed having wider powers.

Dr. King: I agree. One of our difficulties is that we have not yet found parliamentary ways of making criticism in detail of the nationalised industries, and, therefore, take the first opportunity I have had in this House since they happened, to protest with all the force I can against the British Railways closures which have been made in Southampton, and to plead with the

Government even now to reconsider some of the other proposed railway closures in the South. I am not making a constituency speech particularly. I speak not only on behalf of Southampton citizens, but on behalf of the southern region of the Labour Party, which represents about 1 million organised workers in the South of England, whose chairman I am for the time being.
First, let me briefly give the background. Hon. Members who know the South-East Study know that it visualises that there will soon be 2½ million more people in the South even if we completely arrest the drift from the North and completely stop immigration. Even so, 2½ million more will come in the next decade. There are to be two new towns between Southampton and Portsmouth. Newbury, unless its citizens manage to prevent it, will be expanded to 100,000. Already Andover—of which I shall say a word in a moment—and Basingstoke are being expanded. All this vast expanse in the South of England, and especially in southern Hampshire, demands adequate road and rail communications. That is the first point.
Secondly, the Rochdale Report, as hon. Members know, says that Southampton will be one of the two major southern ports. It is already the premier passenger port, and will considerably expand as a cargo port. This, again, will demand the best possible communications by rail and road. We have not yet adequate communications, and the need is to extend, rather than to contract, road and rail services.
The third factor is that Southampton has for a century provided a close link with France, especially with Normandy. It will continue to provide, if the Rochdale proposals are implemented, a commercial link between the Midlands and Europe. This is good for cross-Channel trade. This is good for understanding between ourselves and the Continent. I am not an anti-Common Marketeer, but nobody who is anti-Common Market wants to isolate Britain from Europe. Even those who do not believe in the Common Market want to trade with Europe, want good relations with Europe, and anything which serves as a link between England and France is good for Britain from the international as well as from the commercial point of view.
The City of Southampton has a 100 years' tie with the City of Le Havre. This should be a time when British Railways should be seeking to expand their rail services to improve them to the South and to extend communications across the Channel. It ought to be a time when they are keenly interested in improving everything which can serve the interests of the great Port of Southampton. For a century the railways had a vital interest in Southampton Docks. Their historical contribution to the docks and to Southampton are beyond praise. After the war, Parliament passed the Act setting up the National Docks Board, gave the Board control of the Docks and since then British Railways seem to have lost interest in and written off Southampton. This is something I cannot understand.
I will give a trivial, but significant, illustration. In April, an excursion was arranged to Paris at £4 10s. per head. Fifty people went on it. Last year, a similar excursion was such a success that about 1,000 went on it. The local Press became interested in the failure and found that the excursion this year had not been advertised by British Railways. When they raised the matter, British Railways promptly declared that the excursion had been advertised. I took the matter up with them and their second explanation was that it had not been advertised because they did not know that it was taking place until it was too late to advertise it. I have since been informed by some friends in the Customs that the Customs were informed three weeks before that it was to take place.
There were two possible explanations for this. Some trade union friends would say that there was a third and worse explanation. It was either indifference to the excursion on the part of British Railways or, on the other hand, inefficiency in running it. The fact remains that the loss made on the excursion is a loss to be written into the accounts of the cross-Channel trade and it can provide part of the evidence of the loss being made on the cross-Channel service. Against that the background of this simple, trivial, but I think significant instance, I put my main concern, the closure of the Southampton-Le Havre boat service. British Railways tried to close it three years ago. Everyone in

Southampton protested and Le Havre itself protested. We managed to persuade British Railways to keep it open.
Meanwhile, there has grown up a car ferry service across the Channel. When again this year British Railways sought to close the service, some of us urged them, as some of their influential friends had already urged them, that even if the boat service to Le Havre in its present form was not profitable, there was money to be made out of a car ferry service. We suggested to the transport users' consultative committee that British Railways should themselves run such a service from Southampton to Normandy. While we were pleading before the committee, someone was already arranging that a private company should operate a car ferry service between Southampton and Normandy.
The service which could have been profitably run by British national enterprise has been handed to a Norwegian private company. Indeed, the docks have admirably provided the foreign company with facilities. British Railways have themselves created a new jetty at enormous cost to make possible a car ferry service for a private company which they might have run themselves; and now a new private enterprise car ferry service to Normandy is receiving more magnificent publicity than the Southampton-Le Havre nationally-run service ever received.
As a result of the running down of the cross-Channel service, British Railways decided to close the marine repair workshops in Southampton Docks. I recall our telling the T.U.C.C. that this would happen; that if they took off the cross-Channel service it would not only mean the dismissal of the men who served on the boats, but gradually a running down of the men servicing the boats in the docks.
If my protest is against the closing of the cross-Channel service and the consequent closing of the marine repair workshops, I am even more indignant about the way in which all this has been done. The trade union leaders of the Confederation of Shipbuilding Workers were called to a meeting and told that the repair shop in the docks was to be closed. When they asked whether they might discuss the matter, perhaps thereby


getting the decision postponed or modified, they were told that it was not a matter for discussion. They simply had to accept the diktat of the management.
It was even suggested by the management, so my trade union friends who were at that conference tell me, that they might not have closed the workshops had the hon. Member for Southampton not raised the matter in Parliament. I hope that I am misinformed about this; that my trade union colleagues misunderstood the management and that they did not mean to suggest that the factor which had decided them to look into the question of closing the repair workshops was that the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen, was doing his duty in the House of Commons.
If it is true, it is indefensible and it makes the picture look even sorrier than it is. So now the workshops are to be closed in a thriving port, with a thriving future, in neither of which does British Railways seem to be needed.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I hesitate to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he still believes that nationalisation is the solution to our problems, after the tale that he has told us.

Dr. King: No one thinks that nationalisation is perfect. What is wrong with this is not nationalisation, but, as I hope to show, creeping denationalisation. I will answer the hon. Gentleman's question before I sit down.
My fellow trade unionists in Southamption and those in the great labour movement of the South have resisted from the start, the various shrinkages which British Railways were responsible for at Lancing and Eastleigh some years ago, and now in the docks. They believe in British national enterprise and good labour relations. They object to a policy of handing over what might be a successful service, run under a nationalised industry to private enterprise, especially a foreign private enterprise.
I try to be fair, but it is difficult not to be harsh about some of the things that have happened in this case. I want to be fair to British Railways. Their defence may be that it is right to put all their eggs in one basket; that Dover and Folkestone are such money spinners at the present time, with the car ferry

service, that it is right to let those places go on ticking merrily and bringing the money into the coffers, and to let Southampton go to anyone who has the enterprise to make money out of it.
I believe that attitude to be wrong, and that, by adopting it, British Railways are shutting their eyes to other factors; to the importance of the southwest of England and, incidentally, to the future development of the South-West. The South-West will not always remain the rural area it now is if the population of England continues to explode at its present dramatic rate.
I believe that it is bad for our economic and political relations with France, and with the north of France. Other nationalised industries show enterprise and vision—and this is the answer to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). If we look at coal, gas or electricity—indeed, at some parts of British Railways—we find vision and enterprise being shown by the men who are serving the nationalised industries faithfully, and with devotion and skill. On the whole, the nationalised industries also seek to build up good relations between management and men.
I protest not only against what has been done, but at the way in which it has been done, and against making redundant railwaymen who have served in the boats or in the marine workshops for the best part of their lives, and have given some 20 or 30 years' service to British Railways. I protest against the refusal of the management to discuss with the responsible leaders of the trade unions concerned any question of deferring the decision until it could be really considered between the two sides. I admit that the men who will be dismissed get the benefit of the redundancy schemes which are part of the great British Railways set-up.
As for expanding the railway service, we have learned this week from the Minister of Transport that he proposes to close the passenger service on the Romsey-Andover line—a line that is destined one day to be part of the main rail link up through an expanded Newbury to the Midlands and serve the great future port of Southampton. I plead with the Minister to think again about the closing of the Romsey-Andover line. I speak in this matter


not only as a Labour man, and not only for the great trade union movement to which I belong, but for the Hampshire County Council and the Andover Borough Council, both of which bodies are controlled by Conservative majorities.
I urge the Minister, not only from the hardship point of view mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West but from the long-term view, to look again at the proposal to close the Romsey-Andover line. Similarly, on behalf of the southern region of the Labour Party, I urge the Minister to give careful consideration before finally deciding to close the passenger service on the Reading-Guildford-Redhill-Tonbridge railway. I urge this on the hardship commuter grounds advanced earlier in this debate.
We on this side hold the view that profit should not be the only yardstick when deciding whether to close a railway line or passenger service. We look forward, in the next Government, to a radical approach to the integration of road and rail as part of a great national plan. I express regret that a vital service that has been of great value to Southampton and to France should have been closed in the period under discussion, with so little consideration to the vital and human factors that I have mentioned.

12 m.

Mr. Roderic Bowen: I intervene solely to draw attention to an anomalous situation in my constituency on the Carmarthen—Aberystwyth railway line. All the mechanics of the procedure for closing the line for passenger services have been gone through and the matter has been under the Minister's consideration for some months. I have no quarrel with that aspect and I deeply appreciate that the Minister has carefully considered all the implications of the possible closure of the passenger service. I hope that ultimately the right hon. Gentleman will come to a decision which will be welcomed in that area.
The anomaly which exercises my mind is that during the several months in which the passenger service has been in the balance, the British Railways Board, as it is entitled within its powers, has closed the line to freight transport.

During the last few months the line has been open to passenger service but, with one or two exceptions, closed to freight service. I plead that at least during the period in which the Minister is making up his mind he should bring pressure to bear on the Board to keep the line open for freight service. It is most anomalous that the line must be maintained with all the safety precautions required for a passenger service, but that the normal freight service can no longer be operated.
The economics of the situation are ridiculous. No one could possibly attempt to argue that if the line has to be kept open for passenger service the additional cost involved in providing a freight service could provide other than a profit element. I ask the Minister to give ultimately a favourable decision on the passenger service, but my most immediate plea is that pending that decision pressure should be brought on the Board to maintain the freight service while the line remains open for passengers. There is a great demand for the restoration of the freight service. It would not involve any economic hardship on the Board. I urge the Minister to make representations to the Board. I do not know that under the Act he has power to do more than that at present, but it is utterly ridiculous that, while the line remains open for passenger service, the freight service should be withdrawn from it.

12.5 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): I should like to begin by referring to what I thought was an ungenerous remark that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) made about my right hon. Friend. He said that he did not like my right hon. Friend's activity in trying to stimulate the campaign for testing lorries. That was a most unfortunate remark and I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman made it, because I could not disagree with him more. I think that my right hon. Friend was absolutely right to do what he did.
Nevertheless, in spite of that failure, I think that in other respects the hon. Gentleman made a good, and in parts humorous, and interesting speech. It had a fascinating introduction referring to the book written by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson), but,


as I have not had an opportunity to read it, I cannot comment upon it.
What really concerned the hon. Gentleman was his own constituency, and I should like to deal with some of the points he raised. As he knows, the line between Gloucester and Hereford is partly in Gloucestershire and partly in Herefordshire, and, as there were objections from both counties, the Midlands T.U.C.C. held a meeting at Ross on 30th July, and on the next day the South-West T.U.C.C. held a meeting at Gloucester. In addition, as a short section of the line near Gloucester is used for services between Cheltenham and South Wales, a further hearing was held by the T.U.C.C. So, altogether, my right hon. Friend had three reports from the T.U.C.C.s about this line.
The conclusions of the T.U.C.C.s were that further services beyond what the railways proposed would be needed to remove hardship, and this shows the value of the transport users' consultative committees, that they often make recommendations or give advice of this sort.
One of the things that they were particularly concerned about was the provision of services to meet the needs of people at the various places which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, namely, Blaisdon, Northwood Green—I do not think he mentioned that place; it is a little village—Grange Court and Oakle Street. They thought that the new services for those places, if they were to be provided, should run close to the existing railway stations. Of course, that brings in the figures, with which I will deal in a moment, about the roads. My right hon. Friend went into this suggestion with special care. He knew that doubts had been expressed about the feasibility of running buses to these places. In fact, the hon. Gentleman drew that matter to my right hon. Friend's attention. But, of course, what routes buses use is a matter for the traffic commissioners to decide.
However, my right hon. Friend made inquiries of his own about the state of the roads and he believes, after these inquiries, that a route can be found for bus services which the T.U.C.C.s thought would be necessary. Such a route would involve little divergence from those already used by bus services. I think that is a very important point. But if

the traffic commissioners decide that they cannot grant licences either because the roads are too narrow, or for any other reason, the conditions of my right hon. Friend's consent will not have been fulfilled and, therefore, the lines could not be closed. The matter would have to be looked at again, and I think that that is a very considerable safeguard.

Mr. Loughlin: I want the Minister to get quite clearly in his mind that these are not additional services. There is no bus service of any kind in this area at present. These are new bus services and, as I read the Minister's decision, the decision restricts itself to these services that are proposed. Therefore, whatever the traffic commissioners may say, there is no question of additional services.

Mr. Galbraith: Perhaps I was using the word "additional" in the wrong way. Let us call them new services, if the hon. Member prefers. If the traffic commissioners consider that the roads are not wide enough, or that, for any other reason, the buses should not run on these routes, it means that the railways cannot be closed because my right hon. Friend's conditions will not have been fulfilled.
As to the traffic on the roads—the hon. Gentleman referred to their narrowness—the needs of these communities are very small, and my right hon. Friend does not feel that the few extra or new buses would have any appreciable effect on traffic. He recognises that the bus journey from, for instance, Blaisdon to Gloucester would take about 17 minutes longer than the train journey, but, bearing in mind that so few people use the trains—only 12 or 13 people altogether from Blaisdon, Grange Court and Oakle Street in the two morning trains—he does not consider that this amounts to hardship, particularly when weighed against the substantial savings which the railways expect to achieve from the closure.
I know that it is rather like a red rag to a bull even to begin to mention money, but, in fact, the sum involved is quite large, £90,000 a year. The hon. Gentleman said something about casual fruit pickers. I have the greatest sympathy for casual fruit pickers, but one cannot keep going a railway system which costs


£90,000 a year to help casual fruit pickers. It seems to me that losses of this nature are out of all proportion to the volume of passengers on the service, about 220 each day, of whom about 40 are passengers from Blaisdon, Grange Court and Oakle Street into Gloucester.
A simple division sum shows—I do not think that the Opposition ever properly appreciate this point—that each passenger on this line is being subsidised approximately to the extent of £225 per annum. It really is a ridiculous state of affairs.

Mr. Loughlin: I do not accept the figures.

Mr. Galbraith: If the hon. Gentleman does not accept the figures, perhaps we can have a talk afterwards and go into them. Obviously, we cannot do it across the Floor now.

Mr. William Ross: One cannot do it even at the T.U.C.C.

Mr. Galbraith: One cannot discuss the financial side at the T.U.C.C. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who has appeared before one T.U.C.C.—

Mr. Ross: Two.

Mr. Galbraith: —before two T.U.C.C.s, and who has taken some interest in this matter, will know that Sir William Carrington, the distinguished accountant who was asked to examine the railways' method of reaching these figures, gave it as his opinion that they were fairly reached and were suited to the purpose of the transport users' consultative committees, which, of course, has nothing to do with finance.
The function of the T.U.C.C., as everyone in the House knows, is to deal with hardship. I merely mention these matters to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West and point out to him that each of these passengers is subsidised to the extent of £225 per annum. My right hon. Friend and I think that this is an excessive amount.
These are two other points which I wish to stress. First, the alternative services which my right hon. Friend required must, as I have explained, be available before the closure takes place. This, therefore, brings into operation the safeguard which I mentioned. Secondly, if, in the light of experience, it seems that the

alternative services need some adjustment, the terms of my right hon. Friend's consent are such that he can see that the necessary alterations are made afterwards.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned two other stations. One was Churchdown. Proposals with regard to that station are still under consideration. My right hon. Friend will announce his decision as soon as he can, and the hon. Gentleman's remarks will, of course, be taken into account. The other station to which he referred was Badminton. I was rather surprised at this because, when he asked a Question about it not long ago, I thought that I had cleared his mind on the point.
The board has not proposed the closure of this line, so nobody has had to oppose it. I think that the hon. Gentleman was, again, slightly ungenerous in his remarks, because, until recently, the railways had no legal power to propose the closure of this line. I do not know whether they will or not, but, until recently, they had no power to do so.

Mr. Loughlin: I want to be quite clear about this. My information is that there was a proposal by the Railways Board to close this station and that the Duke of Beaufort petitioned against it. There was no formal notice of closure in the sense that there was the possibility of a hearing to consider the matter, but there was a proposal to close it.

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman must know a great deal more about these things than either my right hon. Friend or I, because we know only when there is a public proposal, and there has been no public proposal in this case. All sorts of rumours circulate about various railway stations and lines, but until there is a public proposal my right hon. Friend is not aware of the matter. I think that hon. Members would be well advised not to pay attention to rumours, but to wait for official notice.
Many hon. Members have raised constituency points of one kind and another. I should like to be able to answer them, but I cannot carry in my head all the facts about all the various railway lines which have been closed.
The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow), who made an


interesting speech, was worried about overspill and the effect on it of possible railway closures. He said that Dr. Beeching did not take that into account. He may not; I do not know. He decides these things on his commercial judgment, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Minister takes that sort of thing very much into account. Therefore, if what the hon. Gentleman says is true—and I do not deny that it is—this is a matter which certainly will be taken into account when the railway line in which the hon. Gentleman is interested comes before my right hon. Friend for decision. This is just the sort of matter which is outside the normal consideration of a railway manager, but which is dealt with by my right hon. Friend. A good example of this was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey).

Mr. Snow: I told the House that Dr. Beeching had told me that he did not take it into account because it was not within his brief so to do. The hon. Gentleman referred to what would happen about Rugeley when the case came before the Minister. It is before the Minister. The trouble is that the Minister seems unable to understand that when Dr. Beeching puts forward a proposal for a closure the responsibility for proving the need to keep it open, rather like in the French legal system, remains with the people who are affected by such a closure.

Mr. Galbraith: Dr. Beeching has been given statutory duties, one of which is to run the railways in a commercial manner. He may consider that the right thing to do is to close a particular line, but there are all sorts of other considerations to be taken into account, and that is what the Minister is there for. He takes account of such things as extra building, overspill, or a new town, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) raised many matters which, I am sure he realises, are of a managerial nature. I cannot comment on them, but I have no doubt that Dr. Beeching will see them in HANSARD, not tomorrow, but perhaps the day after.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the Romsey-Andover line. I recollect one fact about this line. I know that this

will not be agreeable to the hon. Gentleman. Each passenger on that line was being subsidised to the extent of £250 per annum. In the circumstances, we felt that there was no justification for keeping the line open, but the railways have agreed not to remove the track without informing my right hon. Friend. I think that that preserves the position for the future, and that is the important thing.
The hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) raised a matter which he realises is also a matter of management—freight. My right hon. Friend has no powers in that respect, but I am equally certain that Dr. Beeching will take note of what the hon. and learned Member said about maintaining the freight services while the future of the passenger services between Carmarthen and Aberystwyth is under consideration.
During the past year I have answered 12 Adjournment debates on railway closures, and three weeks ago tonight I concluded a debate on transport which dealt mainly with railway problems. I do not think that it would be agreeable to the House if I repeated at this hour what I then said, for there are many hon. Members who wish to raise other subjects. Some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth will be dealt with later today, when one of his hon. Friends speaks about a similar subject.

Mr. Loughlin: Will the hon. Member allow me to correct something that I said. I said that the Duke of Beaufort had told him something. That is not true. The circumstance in which the remark was made was private. The remark was not made by the Duke of Beaufort.

Mr. Galbraith: I appreciate how easy it is to make that sort of slip of the tongue.

SCOTLAND (NEW UNIVERSITY)

12.23 a.m.

Mr. John Rankin: I desire to seek more information about Scotland's new university. This is a matter in which I have long been interested, for it is nearly 18 years to this month that I first raised the question of a new university in Scotland.
In dealing with the subject, I do not want to go back 18 years, although I might well do so. I shall start no further away than a fortnight ago tonight, because we are now into Thursday, 30th July, and it was only a fortnight ago, during questions on business, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and I asked the Leader of the House when a statement would be made about the situation of the new Scottish university.
The reply which we received on that occasion was "Not without notice." Evidently the Leader of the House was not aware, when he used those words, that notice in the form of a Question was already on the Order Paper. He was further asked whether he would make a statement next week—which is now last week—and his reply was:
I will certainly discuss the matter with my right hon. Friends."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July, 1964; Vol. 698, c. 1443–45.]
Most of that exchange will be found in column 1445 of HANSARD of the day to which I have referred. While the Leader of the House was talking about next week, the expected statement was made in the week in which he was speaking, for the next day, Friday, 17th July, it was given in reply to a Written Question by the hon. and gallant Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Commander Donaldson). The Question appeared on the Order Paper on the very day that the Leader of the House was telling us that he would discuss the matter with his colleagues. Evidently he knew nothing about what was brewing. The Secretary of State for Education and Science at least must surely have been privy to what was happening for he had to supply the

answer to his hon. Friend the following day. The Question was not on the Order Paper on the Wednesday. Obviously, it appeared on Thursday in a moment of inspiration. How that inspiration is created in an hon. Member is not for me to pursue at this time.
The terms of the reply which appeared on the Friday are worth quoting. The Secretary of State for Education and Science told the House that the University Grants Committee, after visiting the proposed locations, had advised the Government that the new university should be located at Stirling, and that advice, we were told, had been accepted. In that curt and obscure manner a great moment for Scotland was hidden away in a corner of HANSARD. It was a disgrace. Here was a moment of drama; a time for the pealing of bells, for bonfires. Something wonderful had happened. A promise made 400 years ago had materialised. I wonder whether hon. Members opposite realise its significance. This was promised by James I, 400 years ago, and after waiting that time we got the promise of the new university, hidden almost on the back page of HANSARD. If ever brevity was the soul of wit, this was one of the wittiest Answers that has appeared in HANSARD for a long while.
The recommendation was made in such a way that hon. Members were substantially deprived of their right to seek further information from the Government other than through this debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, which is only a limited opportunity. For that reason the Government are subject to our censure. Expenditure of between £6 million and £9 million arises from this decision. A very staunch supporter of the Government, the Glasgow Herald, on 18th July, had to pass serious strictures on the Government which it supports for the way in which they had handled this important announcement. This is what it said:
Although the new university deserves unqualified support, the Government and the University Grants Committee do not. The campaign for a new university was not a sporting competition in which everyone congratulates the winner and that is the end of it. It was an advocacy of Scottish social and educational interests and a major public investment. These are Government matters and call for explanation as well as the decision which has been made. Mr. Hogg and Mr.


Noble should explain why they accepted the U.G.C. recommendation and what their future policy is for expansion in Scottish higher education.
Even although time was very short, I personally tried to elucidate more information from the Government, and on 22nd July I received a Written Answer from the Secretary of State for Education and Science in answer to my further search. He said:
The factors taken into account by the University Grants Committee in advising on the location of the new university are described in paragraphs 276–287 of the University Grants Committee's report 'University Developments 1957–62' (Cmnd. 2267."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1964; Vol. 699, c. 100.]
So, to find those reasons, I turned my attention to the paragraphs referred to. Paragraphs 276, 277, 278 and 279 do not say anything about the matter, but paragraph 280 makes the simple statement that, in siting a university, or rather, in deciding to create a university and siting it, if it is to be fully effective it should be part of the community in which it lives. That is, I think, a remarkable discovery. How could anyone vision a university that functioned outside the community in which it was based? A university needs various sponsoring groups and, said the Report, it
… could act as a stimulus in many ways to the life of the area in which it was established.
All that, of course, is merely mundane talk which one would think is accepted without further comment. Paragraph 281 says:
… it was not expected that the proportion of boys and girls who were likely to qualify to proceed to a university would increase in Scotland as rapidly as in England and Wales. As a result of these two factors, we had to recognise that some 15 additional places would be required in England and Wales for every one in Scotland. Added to this, the expansion proposals of the five existing university institutions in Scotland appeared to meet the potential demand in the later sixties …
Here are the people, distinguished gentlemen all of them, academically qualified and qualified well in other ways, who are asked to decide on the question—a major question—whether Scotland should or should not have another university and where it should be sited. These paragraphs show the Committee to be against having another

university in Scotland at that time. Can the right hon. Gentleman expect me to have any confidence in a view which is based on the findings of individuals who, only four years ago, regarded another university for Scotland as not an immediate necessity?
The Committee went on to refer to the need for the university having a friendly community; financial support from sources other than the Government; being part of a diverse civic community, and it regarded the cosmopolitan character of a university as one of its great educational and liberalising influences. The supply of lodgings and the attractiveness of the area to the academic staff were other necessities it mentioned.
I do not quarrel with those, but the Committee did not mention the greatest necessity of all—the social and economic impact made by a university on the community. This is the decisive factor and it is a matter not for a Committee of this kind, but for the Government and the Government alone.
The Written Answer I have mentioned also said:
… the University Grants Committee considered that the location of the new Scottish university had to allow both for specifically Scottish needs to be met and for a suitable proportion of students to be attracted from elsewhere."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1964; Vol. 699, c. 100.]
That is completely feeble. Glasgow, Edinburgh, St. Andrew's and Dundee are all universities of long standing and each attracts students from elsewhere. They come to Glasgow, from south of the Border, from the North of Scotland, from the Colonies, from all over the world. That sort of recommendation can be applied to every part of Scotland seeking to have a university.

The Minister of State for Education and Science (Sir Edward Boyle): In view of what the hon. Gentleman said about the social aspect, he should bear in mind that in paragraph 283 of the Report the Committee specifically said:
In view of the growing importance of pure and applied science, we felt that the presence of industries in an area could provide a useful association and we therefore took account of the kind of industrial development in those areas which were claimants for universities and also of the existence of research institutions or organisations.


Surely that is relevant to what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

Mr. Rankin: I was not trying to prolong that part too long, but I must say something about it. I was going to refer to it a little later, but the right hon. Gentleman has anticipated what I was driving at. Perhaps I might not have been sufficiently clear. I was dealing with that part of the decision not just from the point of view of putting a university into a place where industry existed, but where the university would become a great growth point.
It is not merely a social and economic investment. A university today can be the greatest industrial investment that any Government can give to an area that is seeking to develop itself. I say that that is one of the aspects of these recommendations from the University Grants Committee which disturbed me very seriously because there is not, as I have said, one single word about the social and economic stimulus that can be provided by a new university, nor is there any reference whatsoever to the university as a point of industrial growth in itself.
The Scotsman on 18th July, goes back to that point in dealing with the decision which the Government has taken. It says this:
Five universities in the central belt of Scotland is not good planning.
Actually, there will be six. The Scotsman further says:
This is too high a concentration for good academic planning; it is certainly inconsistent with the Government's principles on development.
When we look at this decision, including the manner in which the whole business has been handled, one of its effects is to do a great disservice to the Scottish Highlands and its capital. Because now there is a feeling that as a result of the Government's treatment of this matter the Highlands are too far away for a university, and this is, in my view, a terrible disservice to do to Scotland.
If a university is too far away, situated, for example, in Inverness, what hope is there of inducing industrialists to migrate to the Highlands? So I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is prepared this morning to do anything to right the wrong that he has done to Scotland, though not by placing the university at Stirling, for I welcome that. Now that

that decision has been taken it is the duty of every good Scotsman and Scotswoman to welcome it and to do everything that he or she can to advance the university's interests and future. I am not complaining now of the placing of the university at Stirling, but of the way in which it has been done.
The Government went about the matter almost secretively and we had the spectacle involving the Leader of the House—not a Minister—a Member who speaks for both sides of the House, who should at least know what his ministerial colleagues propose to do and who, when telling the House of the business for the following week, should know all that is brewing amongst the Ministers on his own side. Or are we to conclude that the right hand of the Tory Party does not know what the left hand is doing; nor the right foot which way the left foot is moving?

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: At a quarter to one in the morning, I have no great desire to read a sermon to the Government Front Bench, but we are entitled to ask why this decision was reached in so clumsy and so gauche a manner. Was it not obvious that where-ever the choice fell, it would cause controversy and distress?
Dumfries had a claim. Ayr had a sound case in many ways, from the point of view of providing off-peak accommodation. The Falkirk promotion committee had worked extremely hard. Stirling had put forward its bid. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) has said, there was a strong case for Inverness. Others, too, might have had a chance. Surely, the object of the Government on this occasion should have been to gain good will once the decision was reached. I can only say that the attempt to gain good will was almost non-existent.
When the decision was reached, should it not have been announced, first of all, to the House of Commons, with some opportunity, not necessarily a very long one, for those of us who had questions to put them? After that—I say this because it should have some bearing on the future—would it not have been sensible for the Minister of State for Education and Science, or the Lord President of the Council and Secretary of State,


accompanied by the noble Lady the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, and accompanied, I would say, in this case, by Sir John Wolfenden, Professor Briggs and Dame Lucy Sutherland and Mr. Ian Stewart to hold a Press conference, where the arguments—and there are strong arguments—for Stirling, although I am unrepentantly in favour of East Stirlingshire, could have been aired?
Would not this have been the way in which to create some sort of good will? Had this been done, I do not think that remarks about "gangs of poachers" and other remarks which have done great harm would ever have appeared in the Scottish Press. I regret that this attitude should have been contrived, but it has been contrived. It is a certain thoughtlessness on the part of the Scottish Office which has brought this about.
I do not wish to carp at great length but I have had a courteous letter from the noble Lady, in which she states:
In the letter you passed to me on 23rd July, you asked for the date on which it was finally agreed that Stirling should be the site of the new university, and you put the specific question: was it before or after 2nd July? The answer is that although, as Sir Edward Boyle told you in answer to your Question on 25th June, the U.G.C.'s recommendations had then been received—in fact, they had only just arrived—ministerial consideration of them could not be completed until shortly before the announcement of the Government's decision was made in answer to Commander Donaldson's Question on 17th July. I gather that you think that some information should have been given to the House in the debate on 2nd July.
Certainly I do. That would have been an excellent opportunity for an airing to be given. If a decision had not to be reached elsewhere in the Government machine why could not the opportunity have been given to the elected representatives of the people? Could we have a longer answer about the decision-making in this whole business, and could we know why the opportunity was not taken during the debate on 2nd July to air the subject? I do not think that the noble Lady's answer is anything like adequate. Perhaps the Minister could expand on the delay between 25th June and 17th July?
My second point concerns the whole question of the terms of reference of the

University Grants Committee. The Committee has said that local interests will play a part, and has given many promotion committees to understand that the raising of money and the promise of money will be very good reason for the siting of a university in a particular area. Whether, in fact, this was sensible and right in the first place is open to doubt. Perhaps it is not the way in which a university should be chosen.
Perhaps such a purely ephemeral matter as the enthusiasm of a local committee and its efficiency in raising money is not the way in which to take an eternal decision which is to last, we hope, for many hundreds of years, but I think that the Minister should now say very plainly that the fact that a number of people have gone to great trouble to raise or promise millions of pounds—£1 million plus, in one case—counts as little. In fairness to those on promotion committees this should be made plain from now on. Let us get away from the idea that the raising of money in itself constitutes a reason for putting a university at point A rather than at point B.
Thirdly, could we ask, as I did at Question Time, about the whole Robbins recommendation that universities and teacher training colleges should grow up side by side? I would not like to see a delay in the teacher training college which is going to Falkirk at the present time, but if we accept the Robbins argument on this, is there not very good reason, while it is still in the infant stage, to reconsider the siting of the teacher training college and taking it to Stirling? This will not be popular with my Falkirk friends, but, at the same time, I think that there is a very considerable argument, particularly when teacher training colleges are to be able to award degrees, for putting them in juxtaposition to universities. Perhaps the Minister will let us know precisely what sort of university this should be, if he could take just a little time to expand on the kind of university he envisages.
I would here put in one small but important point, that one of the reasons why I was on the East Stirling promotion committee was that I thought that it would be an opportunity to extend


the very much needed school of microbiology which has been started in a big way in Grangemouth through the action of B.P. in taking its Lavera experiments to Grangemouth and the whole experimentation in converting straight-chain hydrocarbons into proteins. I do not ask for an answer on this tonight, but later, perhaps, an answer could be given on the place of microbiology in the university at Stirling.
Alternatively, is it really sensible to discuss the academic disciplines of a new Scottish university when it is not yet decided where the Heriot Watt College is to be located? This is germane to the whole problem. I think that perhaps there is a strong argument now for bringing Heriot Watt College to Falkirk. I hope that this decision, whatever it is, will not be influenced by any ill-temper any of us may feel at present, in summer 1964. Let us try to put away certain ill-temper which has dogged this whole problem, and decide, on rational grounds, where the Heriot Watt College is to go, as soon as possible.
I do not think that it behoves a politician to carp too much, but I have one serious "grouse". When the U.G.C. delegation came to East Stirlingshire it came without my personal friend, Dr. Vick. Perhaps one should not criticise one's friends on the Floor of the House of Commons, but I think it a pity that to East Stirlingshire there did not come the technological member of the delegation. Having visited Ayr and Dumfries, he decided that he had business at Wind-scale. If exceedingly busy men are put on these delegations, they take on a duty which they must honour. Falkirk people are "sore" that the man who, potentially, was their representative found other business to do on that particular day.
My next question assumes particular importance now that the site is to be Stirling rather than Ayr, with its visitors' accommodation, or Falkirk, with its greater catchment area. It is the question of residence. In Ayr, they had the same possibilities of using off-peak periods for university residence in the same way as Brighton has done. In Inverness, I gather, there was a great deal of accommodation, but even including Bridge of Allan, this was not so from the Stirling site. The question arises: what is the

attitude of the Government to be towards grants for residence? Here we are faced with an awkward situation whereby the Universities of York and Lancaster have not any grant for residence while one university, the University of Kent has such a grant. My hon. Friends from Tees-side, the hon. Members for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. W. Rodgers) and Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray), in their efforts to get a university—which I support—will be interested in what is to happen if they are successful. Is Stirling to be entitled to grants for residence or not? If it is not, why should the University of Canterbury get such a grant which is not to be awarded to Stirling?
I ask the Government to give a decision as soon as possible on the Heriot Watt College location to prevent any ill-feeling which exists at present from getting rather out of hand.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Would not my hon. Friend agree that this is an unfortunate precedent for future possible cases and that it would be desirable when the University Grants Committee sends recommendations to the Government for a major question of university development that these proposals should be published and debated in this House before the Government have to make up their mind whether or not to accept the recommendations?

Mr. Dalyell: I think it extremely unfortunate that decisions of this importance, lasting for such a long time, should be given us from on high without being aired by the representatives of the people.

12.58 a.m.

Mr. William Ross: I do not think we can entirely congratulate the Government on the way in which they have handled this matter. I think that they have underestimated the importance that Scottish people place upon education and the pride they take in our universities, their age and all that lies behind them.
To the Department this may be a matter of just another university, but to Scotland it is something which is epoch-making. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) on giving us, by his initiative, this first opportunity of discussing this question which, as he rightly said, some


of us have been concerned about for a very long time. I regret that many people who should have known better attempted to damp our enthusiasm and suggested that we had little need for another university. Attention was drawn to this, not necessarily in Scotland, by the U.G.C. in a development report when its visiting committee found that some universities were out of touch, particularly with future needs in university development and expansion.
The Government have been out of touch with Scotland. There has been one Question after another arising from the natural local patriotism and enthusiasm of Scottish hon. Members in their desire to have the proud honour of locating the new university in their constituency. I remember the Leader of the House saying that a statement would be made in the House; within the week, he said. From a sitting position, and quite out of order, I asked "Where?" and with a gesticulation which could not possibly be reported in HANSARD, the right hon. and learned Gentleman indicated that the statement would be made here, in the House.
Making a statement, or promising to make one, in the House does not mean that a reply to a Written Question is the same as making a statement. When I think of the parade of Ministers who have made statements in recent weeks, some important and some relatively unimportant, I cannot help recalling that this for Scotland was something of real, national importance.
If the statement had been made we could have got the views of the representatives of the various Scottish areas and any wrangles which came from disappointment could have been cleared away within half an hour. Instead, the Government, in their blindness—I will not say slickness—have brought wrangle into an event which should have been one of celebration. I hope that one of the things we can do tonight is end the wrangle.
While all the questioning about the university has been going on, I have taken great care not to say where I wanted it established. I heard my hon. Friends preaching the claims of East Stirlingshire. I read with interest in the Glasgow Herald that that paper thought

Inverness was the ideal spot. The Scotsman also went for Inverness. I remember some friends telling me that the only place it could be was Dumfries. Since I live and was born in Ayr, I thought that it was better to say nothing.
I had a sneaking hope that the Government would put greater weight on one of the conditions which the U.G.C. said it had taken into account; the power or stimulus which a university could be to an area. I hoped that it could be Dumfries or Inverness and that the Government had realised how important it was to develop in Scotland an intellectual growth point in certain areas.
The restraint which I exercised in not suggesting an area was partly due to the fact that one of the first things which determines the siting of a university must be the nature of the university to be established. This may be where people have been misled because one of the points emphasised in the considerations was pure science, the availability of research organisations and so on, which considerations appeared to limit the choice of areas.
If the Government, having received the advice of the University Grants Committee, and having accepted it, had made a declaration to the House, answered questions, and given us the answers that have been sought tonight, I think that all this business would now have been over, but we have to bear in mind all the various considerations that have been laid down. One hon. Gentleman spoke of the question of industry, and I do not think he was satisfied about the competition between Falkirk and Stirling, but if he had gone on reading that paragraph he would have noted that even there the University Grants Committee was not entirely satisfied, because it gave the evidence of the Federation of British Industries that it was not desirable at all—and this point was later made by Robbins—to have universities within the built-up areas, and that there was more scope outside.
The decision has been made, and it may well be a good decision. It certainly takes us very nearly to the boundary between the Highlands and the Lowlands. The university will be going to a town that fulfills some of the considerations, in that it is a very pleasant environment that will certainly not deter


the academic staff which would be attracted, according to the U.G.C., to an area of considerable charm and beauty.
It is to the credit of my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) that he actually purchased this site from the county council very many years ago—so the question of speculation does not come into this matter; Scottish foresight has seen to that. I believe that the property is now in the possession of the Scottish Department. It is undoubtedly one of the loveliest sites in Scotland.
There is no doubt that it is an area that is absolutely steeped in history, and it is well watched over by the "Guardian of Scotland"—William Wallace. It is interesting to note that the English beat Wallace at Falkirk, but that Wallace beat the English at Stirling, so perhaps this is why Stirling had a certain measure of historic claim. However, we should now put our wrangles behind us. The decision has been made, so let us make the best of it. And let us hope that all the enthusiasm that went into the claims for the various sites will now help to make Stirling a worthy addition to our older universities.

1.7 a.m.

The Minister of State for Education and Science (Sir Edward Boyle): Wallace may have beaten the English at Stirling, but the Anglo-Norman baronage, represented by David I and Alexander I, in the Border country, succeeded in bringing union at the last, and I will try to make a speech of unity tonight. If my calculations are right, we have spent 7 hours 10 minutes on the first four subjects, and if we are to have a sitting tomorrow we have 14 hours 10 minutes for the remaining 13, so I will be relatively brief. It may be that the exploits of Simpson, Dexter and Barrington have made us more conscious of time than we would otherwise have been—

Mr. Ross: Who are they?

Sir E. Boyle: An Australian and two Englishmen.

Mr. Ross: Do they play for Rangers?

Sir E. Boyle: I should like, first, to deal with the announcement of the decision, and then say a word or two about the topic of location, and answer some

—I shall not have time to answer all—of the questions put by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell).
On the actual announcement of the decision, what happened was that the University Grants Committee sent its advice to the Department of Education on 23rd June, and on 25th June, I told the hon. Gentleman in a Parliamentary Answer that it had been received. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that my Answer was dated 25th June. In the debate on 2nd July—which was, I think, a Thursday—my noble Friend said that the announcement would be made the next week, or, at the very latest, the week after.
It had originally been intended to answer the Question on 16th July, but, at the last moment—and this is why the Answer was not given sooner—some difficulties arose over the formalities and timing of the transfer of Airthrey Castle to the U.C.G. It was for that reason only that the Parliamentary Question had to be postponed. As soon as the matter had been cleared up, a decision was announced by Parliamentary Answer on Friday, 17th July.
This is the first time that I can recall hon. Members complaining in debate because an announcement has been made in Parliament through a Written Answer which was accompanied by a quite substantial draft Press release giving considerable further information. While I fully recognise the importance of this decision to Scotland it would not have been practicable, on this occasion, to suggest that Parliament should debate these matters in between the advice of the U.G.C. being received and an announcement made by the Government. This is clearly a matter on which the Government, having received the advice of the U.G.C. must take a decision.
I am quite prepared to say this to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). I have talked this over with my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and I am prepared to accept in retrospect that it might have been a good idea on the Friday to have called a Press conference to discuss the matter rather than make an answer by Written Answer and have a Press release. If the House feels that we have erred in that respect, I can only apologise. Yesterday, it fell to my right hon. and learned Friend the


Secretary of State for Education and Science to make an announcement on a different subject, and it also fell to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade to make an announcement on a related subject and we had on that occasion a joint Press conference. I can only say that we felt that this matter had been hanging on long enough and it was important to get the announcement out, but if, in retrospect, hon. Members feel that we should have held a Press conference on the subject, in view of its importance to Scotland, I can only express the sincere apologies of my noble Friend, my right hon. and learned Friend, my right hon. Friends and myself.

Mr. Rankin: Apologies are not of consequence at the moment. I am not despising the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has made them. They are very acceptable but, nevertheless, may I ask whether he is telling the House that it it right that the Leader of the House should make a statement from the Dispatch Box that he will consult his right hon. Friends about a statement for the following week, when he must have known that there was a Question on the Order Paper to be answered on the Friday?

Sir E. Boyle: I do not want to spend too long on aspects of the relationship of the Leader of the House to this matter. It was not absolutely certain on that day whether the timing of the transfer would be cleared up so that it would be possible to give an answer the next day. After all, my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House was concerned with business and was answering questions about business rather than with announcements that might be made during the course of the following week. I think, therefore, that the hon. Member was over-stressing the part of the Leader of the House in all this.
I realise the great importance of this matter to Scotland. I am sorry that the announcement was delayed. If the House feels in retrospect that this matter was of such consequence to Scotland that we ought to have held a Press conference on it, I am, as I say, most ready to apologise on behalf of my Ministerial colleagues and myself and the Government.

Mr. Ross: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his second thoughts. We do not have the feeling in retrospect about this. We had it straight away and we still have it, but we are grateful that the Government appreciate that the matter could have been dealt with in a better way. Failing an Oral Answer in the House, it might have been better, as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, to have followed the Written Answer with a Press conference.

Sir E. Boyle: I have explained how events happened and that I am quite conscious that decisions had to be taken about the handling of this announcement and perhaps they could have been taken differently. I hope, therefore, that we can now finish with that part of my speech.
With regard to the actual location, on which I should like to say a few words, seven locations were keen to have the new Scottish University—Ayr, Cumbernauld, Dumfries, Falkirk, Inverness, Perth and Stirling. The University Grants Committee had to weigh many factors carefully, and its New University Sub-Committee visited all these seven locations. There are a large number of matters that the University Grants Commttee has to take into account when advising the Government, and they are summarised in paragraphs 276 to 287 of the Report quoted by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin).
I will not read them all out now, because the hour is late and it would be unnecessary to do so, but the U.G.C. has to consider factors such as whether the proposed location, site and sponsorship are such as to give confidence that the creation and growth of an academic institution of university standard placed there would proceed smoothly and effectively; whether staff of quality and energy would be attracted in sufficient numbers; whether there are sufficient numbers of students' lodgings to supplement university residential accommodation; whether adequate financial and other support is likely to be available; and whether the locality offers associated industrial research activities.
In answer to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, when one looks at paragraph 283 there is no doubt about the importance of the presence of industries


in an area, though it is quite true that the Federation of British Industries felt that the actual location of a university in a very large industrial centre might have disadvantages. But there is a difference between location in the middle of an industrial centre and the presence of industries which can provide possibilities for research in the fields of pure and applied science.
There is a further matter which the University Grants Committee will have borne in mind and that is the point made by the Robbins Committee that all future new universities should be concentrated on great centres of population or in their vicinity. Those words are in the Report. It is a fact that about 90 per cent. of the population of Scotland lies in the broad industrial belt between Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Mr. Dalyell: The question which has to be put is: what possible confidence does the University Grants Committee derive from the Stirling promoters who have not raised a penny to further their claim? It is a real point. Cannot the Minister say from now on that the raising of finance is of no consequence? Then, I think, many people would be much happier.

Sir E. Boyle: I would not say that it is of no consequence. It is a factor which should certainly be considered. But the whole difficulty in this sort of case must be that there are a number of factors which have to be taken into account. At any rate, while it would not be right for me to quote the details of the U.G.C. advice to the Government, none the less it is fairly clear that there was a strong feeling—this was certainly so on the Government's part—that, bearing in mind the Robbins recommendation, the greatest weight should be given to the three central locations of Cumbernauld, Falkirk and Stirling.
I would remind the House of one important consideration here, which is that these three places lie more or less equidistant from each other. They are 10 to 12 miles apart, all of them on the northern fringe of the industrial belt. I would say that they all offer more or less the same advantages in relation to a potential catchment area for students and, indeed, general accessibility. There is a fact about Stirling that one ought

to remember, that although it is the most remote of the three, none the less it has a population of about 2¾ million people within a 30-mile radius.
I do not know, and it would not be right for me to try to interpret to the House in detail, what were the points in the mind of the University Grants Committee, but I have no doubt that it considered, in deciding among these three locations, important factors such as the attractiveness of the Stirling location to staff. I am sure that it considered the availability of lodgings, and on this point I can only say that, from what I have gathered, there seem to be lodgings in reasonable numbers, particularly in the direction of Bridge of Allan. Finally, but by no means least important, I am sure that it considered the fact that the Airthrey Castle site was in itself a very good, suitable and attractive site.
The University Grants Committee made its recommendation to the Government after having done a very full and considered survey of all the sites available. I do not think that it would have been possible or justified for the Government to have rejected its advice, granted the care which the Committee had given to its consideration.

Mr. Rankin: No one quarrels with the factors which are outlined in the paragraphs to which I referred, but will the right hon. Gentleman agree that, nowadays, apart from attractiveness to staff, availability of lodgings and all the rest, the great fundamental factor is that a new university in any area is an industrial development or investment on its own? Is not that nowadays the most important factor of all?

Sir E. Boyle: With respect, by his question the hon. Gentleman takes us into rather deeper waters than I want to embark on. The extent to which universities are academic institutions and the extent to which they are bound up with technology is a big question. I do not think that one can, as it were, identify a university with economic development to quite the extent indicated by the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) asked what the future of residence would be at the university. I cannot give him a forecast or promise tonight, but I can reply in this way. With


reference to Canterbury, the case he cited from England, one has to remember in this connection the very special circumstances of what one might call the Robbins crash expansion between now and 1967–68. The University Grants Committee has had the very difficult job of marrying academic buildings with the possibility of residence in a number of areas so as to do the operation as smoothly as possible. That is the reason why there could not be, as it were, fair shares among all the newer universities. But, taking the whole period between now and 1967, in fact, the largest proportion of extra residence—and it will be very considerable—will be not at the new universities, but at what one might call the older civic universities in England and Wales. I say frankly that they were very much in need of it. To take Birmingham, which is particularly well known to me, the proportion of residence there, until very recently, was only about 12½ per cent., and there was a very strong case for bringing up the proportion of residence and not relying on too high a percentage of home-based students. The question of residence will be most carefully watched.
I do not mean to score any backhanded point in this, but, if hon. Members were to see the full schedule of what is planned for between now and 1968—in the nature of things, we cannot go into it now—they would feel, I think, that the Government have been, perhaps, rather more forthcoming about residence than the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition suggested in his speech at the very start of this Session.

Mr. Ross: That is a silly point.

Sir E. Boyle: I just make the point because the right hon. Gentleman raised the issue and recognised that there was a difficulty about residence, and I consider that the Government have not been unreasonable in the provision that they have made for a number of universities.
In answer to the question about what sort of universities we should have, I can tell the House that, in our agreeing that Stirling would be the site of the new university, there is no desire on the part of the Government, as it were, to promote a new race of universities which

would be remote from the industrial world. On the contrary, as I mentioned just now, the three possible places in the centre of Scotland, Cumbernauld, Falkirk, and Stirling, are all on the northern fringe of the industrial belt, and one cannot regard Stirling as a remote location. Indeed, it is my belief that even if this university had been located at Falkirk we would still have had a considerable number of university staff living in Stirling, and I am sure that it will be possible to have a university of real value to Scottish trade and industry which can be built up successfully in this area.
Having given that explanation to the House, I hope that hon. Members will feel that the best thing that we can do is to hope for the greatest success for this university in the future.

Mr. Ross: Perhaps I might put this to the Minister before he sits down. He has been charmingly contrite and persuasive. Will he be generous and answer the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) about the Highland area? The right hon. Gentleman's Ministry has to make a decision about Dounreay. There is only one site for the fast breeder reactor.

Sir E. Boyle: I shall bear the hon. Gentleman's suggestion in mind, but I think that tonight, with so many other subjects before us, we had better stick to higher education and not venture into the bounds of higher science.

Mr. Dalyell: Before the Minister sits down—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Even at 3.30 a.m., which it is not, there must be some finality about the act of sitting down.

ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION, STOCKTON

1.26 a.m.

Mr. W. T. Rodgers: If I may follow the analogy used by the Minister of State for Education and Science at one stage, I hope that in the next half hour I shall help to lower the averages for the evening, or at least increase the rate of scoring.
I do not intend to speak for very long, but I wish to raise a matter of great importance to my constituents, and I am


grateful for the opportunity of being able to do so at what is virtually the end of this Parliament. It is a problem which has concerned me during the last 2¼ years while I have been a Member of this House, and one which concerned my predecessor for a long time before that.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government—and I am grateful that he is here this evening—will understand that I am not talking about atmospheric pollution in general, nor for that matter am I discussing the broad general question of industrial pollution. I am concerned with a specific kind of industrial pollution—with which he is familiar—in Stockton, and which is of a very specific origin.
At one time there was something which was known as the "cat smell" on Tees-side. That appears to have been substantially dispersed, and what I am discussing is what is popularly known as the "fish smell". I cannot say that this smell emanates in such a way as to pass into my constituency alone and into no one else's. This I would regard as a rather single-minded exercise on the part of I.C.I. I think that at times it affects the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray) and also that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Slater), and I am sorry that it originates in his constituency, although I do not hold him responsible for it. There are times, also, when it is traceable as far away as Darlington.
The fact of the matter is that Stockton suffers mainly from it because of the direction of the wind at certain times, because of the sea fret, and, on occasion, because of temperature inversion which makes what would be an unpleasant smell quickly dispersed something which persists and hangs over the town for a considerable time.
There is no single issue which has been a source of such persistent complaint and correspondence to me, during the last 2¼ years. It is a matter of grave concern to my constituents. The hon. Gentleman is both at an advantage and a disadvantage in this respect. The advantage is that he has never suffered from being in Stockton on these occa-

sions. The disadvantage is that he speaks in a sense from ignorance, or only at secondhand. I hope that he will take my word for it that it is exceedingly unpleasant, and more unpleasant than any other industrial smell that I have known.
I was born and brought up windward of a gasworks in Liverpool and I think that anybody who has grown up in an industrial town, certainly a quarter of a century ago, when clean air regulations were less severe, is well acquainted with the smells and fumes which taint the air. I can only say, allowing for them and many other smells, too, that this is something very peculiar and unpleasant.
I do not wish to bore the House with long quotations from correspondence, but I should like briefly to quote from several letters to give an example of the sort of experience that my constituents have. One states:
'"We have just had what might have been two beautiful days completely ruined by haze and stinks, which have been particularly bad over Portrack, where I teach. I have had the misfortune to be developing a catarrhal cold and the discomforts of this have been greatly increased by the pollution of the air.
Another writes:
I would like to know how much longer the people in Stockton-on-Tees will have to suffer the horrible smell that comes over from I.C.I. I work in a nursery school and the only nice days of this year are spoiled for the children.
From a third:
My two childrens' health is suffering, as they have had terrible coughs for the past three or four months. The doctor cannot do anything about it as it is the fumes getting on their chests.
Another constituent states that conditions have forced him to take the decision to move out of the area. These are examples, of which I could give many more, but they are simply an indication that it is not one person or a small group of people who find the smell unpleasant, but virtually everybody who lives in Stockton-on-Tees.
One of the bodies which has been fighting hard and commendably to draw attention, not to the fact, of which everybody is aware, but to the need and the possibility of doing something about it, is the Northern Echo. Recently, it carried a full-page feature in which it dealt in detail with the experience of Stockton. I do not propose, even if I


were allowed to do so, to read the full page, but one of the features of this account is what is called a diary, from which I should like to quote. Unfortunately, economising in time means that I cannot quote the diary in full, and it is far more effective in full than in the extracts which I will give, but if the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has another debate which requires his presence later in the night he might like to read the Northern Echo of Thursday, 18th June, a copy of which, no doubt, will be available in the Library.
To deal with it briefly, the diary states that on 3rd May, 1962, the fish smell superseded the cat smell. I.C.I., Billingham, accepted responsibility, explaining that it resulted from occasional leakages from the methylamine plant, but new plant was being prepared which would cut the possibility of leakage to a minimum.
On 4th May and 16th June of the same year, there were entries of further trouble. On 25th July, the smell and haze covered 60 square miles between Tees-side and Darlington and were strong in Stockton and Sedgefield. I.C.I. admitted a "small leakage". Various other entries included the fact that a Middlesbrough man who, apparently, worked in the area, had written a song called "The fume de Tees", celebrating the unpleasantness which people had to experience.
In 1963, according to an entry dated 22nd March, I.C.I. explained that the dismantling of the old plant could be the cause of further trouble. On 24th April, the entry stated that there was a really terrible smell and I.C.I. admitted a leak. On 12th June, evil-smelling fumes were noted, on 14th June new plant at I.C.I. had been closed down for modification, and so on and so forth. It is a very long story and, from the point of view of everybody involved, a most unpleasant one.
The Stockton Borough Council has been very concerned with it over the years and the chairman of the health committee states that for many years the council has complained and has received complaints. He doubts whether there is another authority which has more persistently approached I.C.I. on the subject. He also says:

On every occasion when the atmosphere is heavy and the wind is in the north-east quarter we get it.
That is the sum total of the matter: when the wind is in the north-east quarter and there is the right level of humidity, one gets this in Stockton.
This has gone on a very long time. Some weeks ago I sent the Joint Parliamentary Secretary a letter from 39 consultants and general practitioners in Stockton in which they drew attention to the fact that industrial pollution of any kind is an irritant to the respiratory system, and where there is existing respiratory disease—that is, chronic bronchitis—air pollution will cause further trouble. They are not saying—I do not want the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to misunderstand them or me—that it causes disease; they are saying that it is an irritant; and all the evidence, not only from my correspondence but of people whom I have seen, shows that this is so, that if one is already suffering from this sort of trouble the one place that one should not go to is Stockton, though in very many other respects it is much the best town of its size in England, and Scotland as well.
I will deal with the area of agreement which exists between me and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. We agree that much has been done. I hope very much that he has this in mind. There is nothing between us on that point. About a year ago I had a most helpful discussion with the district alkali inspector and toured Tees-side and was almost certainly better informed as a result. Secondly, to make clear what the area of agreement is I would say that it is virtually impossible to turn the atmosphere of an industrial town into the atmosphere which one would enjoy, for example, on the Yorkshire moors only a short distance away. It would be unrealistic to imagine that we could get an industrial atmosphere quite as pure as we should expect in a rural area. That is an area of agreement over which we need not go again.
But in this case there are one or two factors of first importance. First, we can isolate the cause of the smell. There is no disagreement about it; the record is here in the Annual Report of the Alkali Inspectorate. Secondly, we know its origin. The time is long since when


I.C.I. denied that it knew the source. It admits it occasionally. Perhaps it sometimes gets tired of complaints and will not admit it, but generally it is willing to say that this is the cause of the trouble.
Thirdly, it is most important to make clear that this is specifically unpleasant. It is not simply like riding down into an industrial town where one is hit by the rise in smoke. It may be that some of us perforce like industrial towns, dirty posters peeling off the blackened walls on the banks of canals, and the whole of the industrial landscape, and perhaps even associate with it certain smells and for a moment find them congenial if it is our good fortune not to live in them. But here there is something specific and exceedingly unpleasant. If I could release a little of the amine here, I can hardly say that the Chamber would be less full, because I think that the Parliamentary Secretary and I would stick it out, but it would certainly be exceedingly unpleasant. For these three reasons, this is something I regard as exceptional.
I am raising this tonight because I think that there has been a very considerable complacency. If it does not exist in the Department it exists in its communications with me. There is a total lack of urgency. I can exonerate the Parliamentary Secretary a little. We had an amicable and informative correspondence last year. It came to a standstill because, when I thought that it would be in the interests of all parties to have a public meeting which the alkali inspector could attend—believing, as I do, that these things are better done in the open than by secret diplomacy—the hon. Gentleman said that it would be improper for an Opposition Member to provide a platform for a Government official. This is surely new constitutional doctrine.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): There was no question of the word "Opposition" coming into it.

Mr. Rodgers: Then I understand that there would have been the same refusal to allow a Government official to communicate with the public through an hon. Member supporting the Government. This is unfortunate. I am in favour of

things being done in the open and not behind closed doors.
If a lot of people are upset, what could be better than to enable them to gather together, express their worries and then have a responsible, authoritative person explain the situation to them? A lot of my constituents, except for the efforts of their Member of Parliament, have been kept in the dark. I regret very much that, in this respect, the Parliamentary Secretary was being obstructive.
I come to the hon. Gentleman's "other half," if that is the right description, with whom I have since had correspondence. It was a letter from the "other half" that made me more angry, because it was, to me, the best example of Bumbledom I have come across for a long time. It was not only, in terms of language, cliché-ridden, but in tone—even more important—it was also cliché-ridden. Again, I shall not read the whole letter, but will quote one or two examples which will enable hon. Members quickly to realise the overall tone.
After quoting the hon. Gentleman, his "other half," to the effect that it was more rewarding
… to concentrate on getting rid of the pollution or at least minimising it,
Lord Hastings said:
That is still our view. I should expect it to commend itself to the doctors who wrote to you. They point to public health dangers which they consider are real and they want something done. That is just our attitude… I once more go on the record as saying on the Minister's behalf that no time will be lost and no effort will be spared by the Inspectorate.
Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray) is whispering to me, there are at least two other clichés which do not appear in that letter. I very much regret that apparently stones are still being left unturned and avenues are not being fully explored.
The House will agree that this is not the sort of letter which sends one happily to bed, but is apt to make one waste a lot of energy in unnecessary anger. It was a very foolish letter and certainly gave no sense of dynamic movement in the Department or of a sense of urgency. It may be that there is a security blockage. Perhaps a great deal is being


done. Perhaps the Department is unable to write a more informative letter. In that case, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will let us have a little more detailed information tonight.
One of the problems is engineering. Leakages may occur. I hope that there are means by which the plant itself may be improved. Whether that is within the inspectorate's power, I am not clear. The Alkali Inspectorate's Report mentions circumstances in which breakdowns occur and in which there are accidents, or where units operate erratically and relief valves have to be opened. If the whole thing is so geared that if something goes wrong the poor inhabitants of Stockton-on-Tees suffer, this is surely a case for very careful examination and for further steps than have been taken so far.
I should also like more detailed information about the timetable. Is there a timetable during which improvements may occur, or would the Parliamentary Secretary like me now to reconcile myself to a long period as Member for Stockton-on-Tees during which a large part of my correspondence will be concerned with this problem? I am capable of reconciling myself to many things and perhaps this is something about which it would be better for the hon. Gentleman to be frank now. At least I would be grateful, even if my constituents would regard it with alarm and in such a way that there would be a considerable population redistribution in Stockton-on-Tees in the next 10 years.
Last year, the Alkali Inspectorate brought amines under control. This was a very good way to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the first Alkali Act. The Parliamentary Secretary may explain that the inspectorate has not had time to do the job fully. If I am given a timetable to see when the job is likely to be completed, I shall be satisfied, but I am worried about a phrase which I understand to be current in the terminology of the Alkali Inspectorate. This is a very interesting phrase, because it can be used in almost any context. It is "prudent tolerance".
I understand that prudent tolerance is the principle upon which the inspectorate works. I gather that it is the

point at which one balances the needs of industry with the protection of the public. If this is the case, and if it is the Parliamentary Secretary's view that the balance must be struck where it it is being struck now, this is a very serious matter. Prudent tolerance involves preventing this smell from continuing by dealing with the problem of the amines, even if the cost is considerable.
I do not hold I.C.I. responsible for this nuisance. It is its job to manufacture and sell, but it is the job of the Ministry to control and not expect that its simple moral authority will require a large private firm to do what might be in the best public interest.
I was worried by a remark made in the Northern Echo survey. The Northern Echo reporter visited the wife of one executive of I.C.I. who said:
They seem to think it is inevitable—that the products would be priced off the market if you didn't have it.
Is this the view of the Ministry? Is it the case that if we change the point of prudent tolerance for amines, amines will be priced off the market, with very serious consequences for Britain's industrial output? Put in that way, we can decide whether the present point of prudent tolerance is right.
For 100 years, Stockton-on-Tees helped to pioneer the Industrial Revolution. The predecessors of my constituents pushed through the railway to the constituency of the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Bourne-Arton) and they did a very good job. We in Stockholm have experience of the nature of industry and the price which has to be paid. Equally, we realise—and this has been agreed on both sides of the House during the last few years—the need to rehabilitate areas which pioneered the Industrial Revolution and now find themselves in circumstances of difficulty for which they are not responsible. We are agreed that we want to rehabilitate.
Bearing in mind our contribution of the past, if the Parliamentary Secretary wants to help to rehabilitate Tees-side and Stockton-on-Tees in particular, he will deal with the very acute and most unpleasant problem of this specific atmospheric pollution which my constituents suffer.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Before my hon. Friend sits down, can he give the House any information about the value of the product per annum from this plant? Can we have some indication what area of magnitude of loss to the country or to I.C.I. would result if production were to cease?

Mr. Rodgers: I cannot give my hon. Friend this information. I have not been led to believe that a very great deal is at stake, but perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can disabuse us of this view?

1.50 a.m.

Mr. Charles Longbottom: I hope that the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. W. T. Rodgers) will forgive me if I intervene in his dispute with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, even at this late hour. I did have the pleasure of contesting Stockton-on-Tees in the 1955 election, and that pleasure was diminished by the fact that on several days I was going round in a terrible haze and smell. I would assure my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that the hon. Member is in no way exaggerating when he says that summer days are spoilt by the haze and that the smell is appalling.
Even 10 years ago, when this smell was still prevalent, it is fair to point out that I.C.I. was at that stage doing its best to diminish it. It continues to do so, but it seems to be an extraordinarily difficult problem. It seems that there was a will to overcome this smell, but without the means of doing so. I myself remember that the I.C.I. and the Ministry were doing their best. I only hope that a "boffin" will come across the answer to this problem sometime, because I do agree with the hon. Member that it does make life in Stockton very unpleasant at many times during the year.

1.54 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): I am grateful for the way in which the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. W. T. Rodgers) has raised this subject. I can assure him that we very much appreciate that this is a very unpleasant smell, and that, coupled with the mist that is so very common in that part of the British Isles, it does cause a very considerable problem and nuisance in his constituency. The hon. Member did

himself say that this was one of the processes which only came into the alkali inspector's sphere in 1963, and I can assure him that we believe that we have made considerable progress since.
I understand that late in the summer of 1962 I.C.I. started installing a new manufacturing unit which, it was thought, would produce a very great improvement. Indeed, I think that once the teething troubles of the new apparatus had been gone through it has produced an improvement. I hope that that is so. I am not for one moment claiming that it has cured the problem, but although the hon. Gentleman produced his diary he did stop reading at a date about the time that the new plant was coming into operation. I had hoped to hear that the complaints were getting a little more spread out. If they were not, this depresses me.

Mr. Rodgers: As the hon. Gentleman has asked, for reasons of economy I did not go on from the end of 1962. But at a quick count there are as many examples after the 1963 Alkali Act came into operation as there were before, and it is really this that worries me.

Mr. Corfield: I understood that an improvement had already been effected, and that although there had been teething troubles in the plant, it had been working recently without any obvious faults that could be put right immediately.
I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that we have reached the stage technically at which we can guarantee that there will be no more fish smell, but I can tell him that the Alkali Inspectorate is making every effort to discover ways and means of improving the methods of prevention and will, we hope, eventually eliminate the smell altogether. But it would be wrong for me to say that after the next year or two years there will be no fish smell in Stockton. We cannot tell that at the moment.
Throughout the Alkali Inspectorate's experience with these great chemical works at Billingham and Wilton, the I.C.I. has been very co-operative and has spent enormous sums of money on this problem. There is no question of having reached a point at which one says, "It is not economic to go further". It is not a question of saying, "We


know what we can do to reach perfection, but it is not worth spending the money". It is a question of not knowing the technical answer at this stage.
The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to say that a good deal of progress had been made over the general field of pollution. He mentioned a cat smell. It involved an interesting bit of chemical detective work in finding out what produced it, and I believe that it has been entirely eliminated as a result of the work of the Alkali Inspectorate, together with the local people involved, and I am not unhopeful that we shall eventually find an answer to the fish smell, too. But it would be wrong to give a guarantee at the moment.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises, as do most people, that the problem is greatly complicated by the tendency to mists. The mist tends to trap a lot of emissions so that they do not get away as they would in clearer air, and the emissions, in turn, tend to slow down the dispersal of the mist. They operate one against the other. Although in most cases in the Tees-side area the standard reached in preventing these emissions is very high, there is such a vast concentration of industry that small emissions from a large number of plants, especially when they are held in the mist, add up to a considerable degree of pollution.
The question of how to get over the problem of the mist and the pollution interacting on each other to make the position worse is the subject of research by D.S.I.R. There is no complacency in the Department administratively or technically—by which I refer to the Inspectorate. It has done a great deal. Nobody is more enthusiastic than the Chief Alkali Inspector, who incidentally, is about to retire. His staff have worked very hard on this and they have had the utmost co-operation from the various industrialists in the area.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned domestic smoke control. There is no doubt that even in an area where industry is predominant and there is a lot of pollution from industry, domestic smoke contributes a great deal to the problem. In this particular area where, on the whole, the emissions from any one industry have been reduced very

considerably it is important that the minimum should be emitted by everybody. I would hope, therefore, that Stockton-on-Tees would press on with smoke control, because the mere fact that there is a power station or steel works or chemical works somewhere near which appears to be making smoke, or grit, or whatever it may be, should not make other people feel that it is not worth while trying to relieve the conditions by reducing the amount of smoke from other sources, and, of course, from domestic sources in particular. I would hope that a local smoke control programme will be implemented as soon as practicable and over as wide an area as possible.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the measure of agreement with which we started, that a lot has been done, and that he has had help from the inspectorate. I was sorry about the meeting, because I fully sympathised with what he wanted to do, to talk to people locally with the backing of a technical expert who obviously knows more about it than the hon. Member or I do. I was not being pedantic; I hope I was not. But the House will appreciate it is not appropriate to have civil servants on what, in many quarters, would automatically be construed as a political platform.
If the smoke control advisory people or the borough council can convene a meeting, of course there would be no objection at all to the local inspector being present and giving his advice, and certainly no personal objection to his sitting on the same platform as the hon. Gentleman. It was merely that I thought it not fair that at what would be regarded as a political meeting the chief spokesman should be a civil servant. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not think I was being particularly unreasonable. On similar occasions when something like that has happened there has been a good deal of criticism both in the Press and, indeed, on both sides of the House. I think that it is the right policy, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think that I was unduly pedantic.

Mr. W. T. Rodgers: Is there any prospect, so far as the hon. Gentleman can judge, of a solution being found to the specific engineering problem of being able to take care of the discharge from the amine plant when something goes


wrong internally? This is really the crux of the matter, whether something can be done to avoid that happening in future.

Mr. Corfield: On the straight engineering problem I am sure that in time that could be got over, but I understand that it is not the whole story as we see it at the moment. That is why I am anxious not to give a guarantee or a time scale. I feel sure that as far as the straight engineering problem goes we shall overcome any defect which arises, but I understand that a lot of it is inherent in the ancillary products which come about as a result of this particular process.
There are by-products. I am not a chemist, and not a very good engineer, but I understand that there is a good deal more to it than straight engineering, and that is why it would be very rash to give a guarantee. But I can assure the hon. Gentleman that every effort is being made, and that if and when any breakthrough appears we will certainly see that he is one of the first to be informed. Indeed, I think that the local Press would be on the doorstep to find out about it.

COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRATION

2.4 a.m.

Mr. Norman Panned: I am grateful for this opportunity of raising the question of Commonwealth immigration before the House rises for the Summer Recess. The Commonwealth Immigrants Act came into force on 1st July, 1962, and has, therefore, been in operation just over two years. I think it appropriate that the House should consider what effect it has had on the immigration situation.
The purpose of the Act was twofold: to regulate the number of Commonwealth immigrants coming to settle in this country, and to give the courts power to recommend deportation of those immigrants of less than five years' standing convicted of offences and subject to a term of imprisonment. It did not affect bona fide visitors or students, of whom there are 40,000 in this country. It applied equally to all countries in the Commonwealth, but—perhaps illogically, but for soundly argued reasons—it did not affect immigration from the Republic of Ireland.
It is useful to recall that although the provisions of the Act relating to deportation caused little controversy, Part I of the Act, which was designed to control entry, was fiercely contested, and all Clauses were opposed by the Labour and Liberal Oppositions. If they had had their way, there would have been no Act at all, with the consequences which, I think, will become apparent during the course of my speech.
The purpose of the Act was to admit immigrants by means of work vouchers, but—this is an important point—dependants were to be freely admitted. The Bill passed into law much as originally proposed, but with certain placatory assurances to the Opposition which may have had the effect of causing the Act to be implemented less strictly than was originally intended. The greatest impact, of course, is upon coloured immigrants. I use the term "coloured" in the descriptive, not the pejorative sense, because most of the immigrants are coloured. They come from the tropical Commonwealth countries of Asia and Africa.
It was from those countries that the great influx came which caused steps to be taken. The fall as a result of the Act has been dramatic. In the two years prior to the Act coming into force, net immigration was 250,000. In the two years since the Act was introduced the number has fallen to 100,000, but that comparison is misleading, because in the first period there was a great influx in anticipation of restrictive legislation. Moreover, the number has been rising. In the first year of the Act the net immigration was 30,000. In the year ended 30th June, it was approximately 70,000.
If we take into account that during the period 1955–60, when this problem was giving rise to anxiety and demands for regulation, net immigration in the whole six years was only 211,000, or 35,000 a year. Now it is running at twice that figure. That gives cause for sober reflection. In reply to a Question I put on 15th March, I was informed by the Minister of Health that there are in this country approximately 750,000 people of African and Asian origin. This does not include any children born to those people. Therefore, the figure is an underestimate. If we are to receive immigrants at the present rate of 70,000 a year, there will be a further one million by 1980. For the most part, these immigrants are young, with a low death rate and a high birth rate. One may assume that children born to them would by 1980 amount to another one million. That would make a total of roughly 3 million coloured immigrants to this country, a figure which, I think, gives rise to grave danger even in a country as free from racial prejudice as Great Britain.
In debates over the years there has been much talk of Commonwealth free entry, but that has now lost its logical justification. It was evolved in circumstances much different from today. It was intended primarily to concern those people of British background in the old Dominions of Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Certainly, it was never intended to apply to the vast populations of the Indian and Colonial Empires. Indeed, the situation was controllable at this end because those countries were not then independent. It was never contemplated, never thought possible, that there could be a vast influx of people from those countries; people with different back-

grounds, different religions, and different social habits.
Admittedly, before the war a few people left ships at Cardiff, Liverpool and London and settled here, but the numbers were too small to cause any difficulty. It is worth remembering, too, that free entry was never reciprocal with any countries of the Commonwealth. All Commonwealth countries applied restrictions, some of great severity, on the entry of emigrants from other Commonwealth countries.
The argument that Great Britain, as the mother country, should act differently from the rest has now lost all possible validity. Most of the population of New Zealand and Australia probably regard this country in that light, but it is a palpable absurdity to extend those terms to the hundreds of millions of people in India, Pakistan and Africa. The spirit of nationalism which prompted independence in these countries killed any lingering sense of motherhood which might have attached to Britain in the past.
The only long-term justification for immigration is that the immigrant will, in the course of time, be fully integrated into the life of the nation. That has occurred on several occasions; with the Flemings in the sixteenth century and the French Huguenots later. More recently it occurred with the refugees from Germany, Austria and Poland. They became widely dispersed over the country and were fully integrated into the community. But they are all of European stock, which simplifies the problem. There is only one recorded case of coloured assimilation on any scale in this country, and that was the 15,000 or so freed negroes at the end of the eighteenth century and who, in the course of time, have been lost without trace, as an ounce of sand in a ton of sugar. To attempt to integrate a hundred times that number in a fraction of the time is a formidable task.
The only thorough method of integration is by inter-marriage with the indigenous population over the generations. That has occurred with European immigrants, but the problem is much more difficult in regard to immigrants from Africa and Asia. Indeed, there is a sort of self-imposed segregation among people from, say, India and Pakistan.


They come from countries with ancient civilisations, are proud of their heritage, are devoted to their religions, have no desire to lose their identity and have no wish to be absorbed by the people of this country, even if there were any desire on our part to absorb them, of which there is no evidence. They arrive in this country virtually penniless and are compelled to seek what accommodation they can, often in the Victorian houses in our great cities and there they endure conditions which would be intolerable to the average Briton. Most of them get jobs and, being of frugal habits, they save money and eventually bring their relatives from India or Pakistan. They congregate in certain quarters of our cities—like attracts like—and soon they come to dominate those quarters. The indigenous inhabitants retreat before the flood.
A striking example is to be found in Southall, where one area is virtually taken over by Indians and Pakistanis. There is a school in Southall where 60 per cent. of the children are coloured. Many of them have an imperfect knowledge of the English language. That makes it difficult for them to follow the normal curriculum, causes them to have special instruction and, inevitably, retards the progress of the rest. A sort of educational Gresham's Law operates here; the British parents tend to take their children away from these schools or remove from the district altogether. That, of course, only accentuates the situation and places the area completely under the control of the immigrants. The Southall experience has been repeated in other cities, although perhaps not yet on as large a scale.
I am sure that another feature of this immigrant problem is well known to hon. Members, and that is the effect on the housing situation. It is not often mentioned in our many housing debates, but the overcrowding of these old houses inevitably creates a problem. We can give the local authorities what powers we like, but it is very difficult for the authorities to exercise those powers. They can only reduce the problem by rehousing the surplus in these overcrowded multi-occupied houses, and that is beyond their capacity, in view of their very long housing waiting-lists of people who have lived there for a long time and so have prior claims.

Some authorities, such as Birmingham, are making valiant efforts to improve such property, but they are fighting a losing battle as long as the immigrants continue to come in at the present rate. In some areas, slum clearance has been set back for 20 years or more as a result.
There are other grave dangers in the situation. These people can become an under-privileged class. They accept jobs that are disdained by the average Briton. Admittedly, they render a service in certain directions. It has often been said that without their services the transport industry and our hospitals would be crippled. Admittedly, they take on these menial tasks that are disdained by Britons, and there is some validity in what is said, but it is not conclusive. For example, if the railways did not insist on retirement at 65 they would be in a much better position than they are. Generally speaking, if industry wishes to attract people to unpleasant tasks it is necessary to pay wages that will attract.
I am afraid that I am about to utter a complete heresy, but if there is the need for labour—and I am not always certain that there is, and that we could quite probably make do with the labour we have—I think it preferable to import short-term labour from the Continent, which would return at the end of the contract, rather than import unassimilable immigrants on a permanent basis.
But there are other dangers in this situation. Admittedly, there is little unemployment among immigrants today. Most of them find work, but what will happen in the event of the much-heralded mechanisation of industry which many people foresee, including the Leader of the Opposition, if this mechanisation is to result not in jobs seeking men, but in men seeking jobs? It is clear that the immigrants will be at a disadvantage in such a situation. Very often they will be the last arrivals and the first to go. They would certainly be at a severe disadvantage in the competition for jobs.
It is necessary for me to state briefly how the system works now. The immigrants are admitted in three categories. Category A are those who have jobs to come to. Category B are those who have special skills. Category C are those who have neither of those qualifications.


As far as I can judge, there have been about 400,000 applications since the Act came into force, 100,000 vouchers have been issued and about 300,000 applications are outstanding. Many of the vouchers issued have lapsed and I do not know how many are used—perhaps half—but of the 100,000 immigrants who have arrived in this country since the Act came into operation about half have been the dependants of immigrants admitted under the Act and those who were in the country before the Act came into force. That is a point which must be taken into account. There is virtually no control over the number of dependants who can enter the country.
In view of the tremendous demand for vouchers by applicants from India and Pakistan, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour announced on 5th June that no more applications would be received from those in those countries in Category C, that is to say, those without jobs to come to or those without special skills. But he added that those who had made applications already would receive vouchers as and when their turn came, and from those two countries alone there are 250,000 applications outstanding. If we add one dependant for each immigrant, which is roughly the rate at which they come in, that envisages a potential immigration of no fewer than half a million from those two countries alone.
Whatever is done, there must be a considerable influx of immigrants in the near future. Those who have been granted vouchers must be allowed in, and it would be very difficult and wrong to limit the number of dependants who seek to come to this country. The question is whether we should limit the problem for the future by stricter application of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. Views will differ on how the Act should be operated. To some, and to many hon. Members opposite, this is an emotional issue; to others it is a matter of cold common sense.
There is also the question of the effects which any abrupt reversal of policy might have on the Commonwealth countries affected, but it is the first duty of any Government to look to the interests of their nationals. The problem should

be regarded in that light. I think that there would be an overwhelming case for issuing no vouchers at all for the time being. Certainly, there is an extremely strong case for limiting any vouchers in the future to those who have got jobs to come to, and for suspending for the time being all new applications for vouchers.
Another matter that should be looked into very carefully is the question of dependants. The relationships are very loose in some of these countries, such as the West Indies, India and Pakistan, and the assertion that one is a relative or dependant of somebody in this country needs to be carefully examined before that person is accepted.
I have tried to outline the problems in the present situation—the deterioration in housing, the problems of schooling and the dangers for the future. I urge my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State to take this message to her right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and ask him to exercise the Commonwealth Immigrants Act with greater severity than he has done up to now. I regret that few Opposition Members are here. They originally adopted a fierce attitude to this question, but they have been singularly silent on the matter in recent years. They may have changed their minds. If they have, they should say so. But if their views had been accepted, there would have been no Commonwealth Immigrants Act.
Since 100,000 immigrants have been admitted under the Act, and another 315,000 and their dependants are waiting to come in, what would have been the situation if the Labour Opposition had been in control? We would probably have had more than 500,000 extra Commonwealth immigrants in this country than we have today, with all the social consequences that would have resulted.
We are approaching a General Election. It is the duty of the Opposition to state clearly their policy in this matter. If they are true to what they have so often asserted in this House, they will say that they will repeal this Act. If they are not going to say so, let them admit that they have been wrong on this question throughout. But whatever they do, it is their duty to inform the country


exactly where they stand in relation to this problem.

2.28 a.m.

Mr. John Wells: I believe that I can claim to be the first Member of this House who has ever printed an election address in Urdu. I did so in the 1955 Election, when I contested the Smethwick constituency, and I am delighted to see that we are supported on this side of the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise), a former Member for that Division.
I deplore the total absence of any hon. Member on the Opposition side of the House, except for the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) whose views on this subject we respect, though we may not agree with them. This total absence of Her Majesty's Opposition, in my estimation, shows a gravely irresponsible attitude to this most important problem. I believe that the strength of our nation is due to very many causes. One of the principal causes is the admixture of many races into our people who have been imported and fully assimilated over many centuries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) began his speech initiating this short debate with some historical facts from the time of the Flemings and the Huguenots. I go much farther back in our history and remind the House that, over a period of about 360 years, when the Romans and their satellites were invading our island, one person in nine came from overseas, and, at the time of the Norman invasion, one in 18 came from overseas during a period of a few years.
These various waves of foreigners were assimilated into our race. There is strong evidence that the Romans brought a considerable Negroid element in their military train, and the Phoenicians and other early settlers in this country who were connected with mining also, undoubtedly, brought people from the southern part of the African Continent. These people, too, have been assimilated over the centuries into our race and they have been welcome additions to our nation. It is not uncommon to find clear Negroid features among people in mining settlements throughout our country.
The situation in recent years has been quite different. Those who have come to us in the last 10 years have no desire to be assimilated. The figures show that the net increase in our population by immigration in 1960 was 82,000; in 1961, it was 170,000; and in 1962 it was 136,000. But these newcomers, unlike the people of nearly 1,000 years ago, do not want to be integrated. They wish to be a separate community within the State.
This proportion of foreigners, perhaps 1 per cent. of our total population, may seem very small compared with the numbers in Roman and Norman times, but the fact that these new invaders—I use that word advisedly—do not wish to be assimilated must be contrasted with the ancient assimilations. For instance, between 1096 and 1290 the Jewish population grew to 1 per cent. of the total, then about 1½ million. In the urban areas the concentration was as high as 10 per cent. where they were not assimilated, which was one of the reasons leading to their expulsion in 1290. Contrast this with the modern Jewish population who have become a welcome addition to our population and have added part of the strength of Great Britain by assimilation.
Today, the situation is quite different. Every hundredth person has come from overseas and does not want to be assimilated. The position is easy in a constituency such as mine, where we have even less than one in 100, but in certain other places, such as constituencies known to my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby and for Kirkdale—I have known it myself elsewhere—the ratio rises as high as one in four.
Is it tolerable to have a separate congregation, a separate entity within the State, of people who do not want to be assimilated? Is it in our national interest? Is it possible for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and for her right hon. Friend to take a far more serious view of the legislation which we have with a view to restricting the nearly unlimited flow of unassimilable material?
Naturally, I do not want to restrict students, or people who come here to serve for a period, any more than we would want our temporary emigrants restricted, but let us take the serious and mature view that my hon. Friend has


propounded. I ask my hon. Friend to take a serious view of this matter. Do we want to import the problems that we see in Rochester in the United States of America? This is a terrible thing. These are grave world problems which we do not have here today. Let us avoid them for as long as we can.

2.35 a.m.

Sir Ronald Russell: I want briefly to support the plea made by my two hon. Friends, though I cannot go into the historical researches of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells).
Speaking as one of the representatives of a Greater London constituency, I think that this is becoming a serious problem from the housing point of view. In the debate that we had on housing, the day before yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government stressed what we all know, and has often been stressed, namely, that the housing shortage is worse in our great cities, and worst of all in Greater London, and yet we have this continual pressure of Commonwealth immigrants coming in, and, financed by an outside agency, buying up houses which are thereby denied to our own people.
There is pressure not only on space, but on prices. I have heard of instances in which English people have nearly completed a contract to purchase a house, and a Commonwealth immigrant has come along and offered £500 more for the house. The vendor is placed in an awkward position because, naturally, he wants to keep the bargain that he has nearly made, but he finds it very tempting to accept another £500.
In view of the shortage of houses, which is only slowly being remedied, and can be remedied only by building more houses, it does not seem to make sense to allow this pressure of Commonwealth immigrants to come in and make the situation worse. For this reason, apart from the others mentioned by my hon. Friends, I hope that my hon. Friend will take note of the pleas which have been made.
I know that there is a problem in the Commonwealth countries concerned to provide enough work for their people, and that they come here in such large numbers because we are more prosperous.

I know that it is not the responsibility of my hon. Friend, but we ought to stimulate Commonwealth trade so that we can buy more of the goods manufactured by these countries. This applies particularly to countries like the West Indies.
Here I think that I carry my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) with me. I have always regretted that we cannot stimulate Commonwealth trade by using the weapon of Commonwealth Preference, or rather by bringing it up to date in the light of post-war conditions. I believe that that is how we should assist Commonwealth countries, and not by more or less inviting their people to come here where they have to live in completely different conditions.
I know that that is not the responsibility of my hon. Friend, so I shall not pursue it any further, but I hope that she will ask her right hon. Friend seriously to consider what has been said, and, in the interest of our people, and in the interest of the housing shortage, to keep a still further check on this problem.

2.40 a.m.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I will be as brief as possible at this hour. The House has at last accepted that this is a problem which the nation and the party must face. It varies from area to area. Indeed, in some part of the country there is no problem, because the numbers are so small and the ratio is so great. The problem is almost entirely tied to the housing shortage.
Almost all immigrants go to the big cities, where there is already a housing shortage, and their presence makes that shortage worse. In this debate we should make it clear, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells), that nothing we say is applicable to the students who come to our schools and universities. The reason for immigration is lack of employment in other Commonwealth countries and the solution is to stimulate employment in those countries as far as humanly possible.
I represent a constituency in the inner London ring. There was no problem in the constituency until 1957, but from that time onwards, gradually as the number of immigrants increased, the problem in the area developed. Nearly always they have settled in the same area, and in-


crease the housing shortage. A great deal of the ill feeling arises among people who see somebody from outside the country taking accommodation which they think should have been theirs.
I advocated restriction in 1957, and I supported the Bill in 1962 throughout its passage. By then we had discovered that the voluntary system had broken down, and restriction by legislation was the only method which would work. The Labour Party opposed the Bill throughout, and I am sorry that its representatives are not here to give us their views on the subject. It is often forgotten that Commonwealth countries operate a system of restriction against people from this country, and if we have a restriction on immigration to Britain, it is no new principle. In a Commonwealth of 600 million people, is it not impossible not to have legislation restricting entry?
It may well be that with our own increase in population, which is expected to be 80 million in the next 20 years, and with the coming of automation, we shall have too much labour in 20 years' time. We must consider the immigration problem not just for today and tomorrow but over the longer-term future. One of the difficulties with the immigrants is that they do not assimilate into our communities. In most cases—not all—they prefer to stick to their own groups, and not to integrate with the indigenous population.
One of the great problems arises from their families. Up to December last year, 296,000 vouchers were applied for—which shows that very large numbers wish to come to this country; 41,000 vouchers were granted and 35,000 people were admitted to this country. But during that period an equal number of the families of immigrants were admitted, making a total of 70,000. That brings the total to about 70,000. I wonder whether we are right to issue as many vouchers as we do. We must ask ourselves, "What is the total which we believe we can absorb?" I will not ask my hon. Friend to state the number now, but she should give serious consideration to the problem and say that 20,000 or 30,000, whatever it is, should include the families. A global figure should be accepted for admissions.
I believe that many of the immigrants established here have come round to the

view that in their own interests and the interests of the country which they have adopted a restriction of immigration is desirable. In many cases they feel that there is a limit to the numbers which can be admitted. This is a very strange change in attitude on the part of some of the immigrants. Some may say that it is the philosophy of "Pull up the ladder", but I think that the feeling is genuine and that they know that if there are too many it might be disastrous for them.
I am extremely sorry that no hon. Member of the Labour Party is present to state his party's policy. At the beginning we were subjected to all sorts of taunts and criticisms for bringing into operation a Bill which we knew was right. We realised that legislation was the only possible solution.
Finally, I believe that the right policy is to make sure that the immigrants who are here are properly looked after, properly housed and made to feel part of our community. We must accept those who are here and help them in every possible way. They are here to stay. At the same time, we must persuade ourselves that there is a limit to the number that we can absorb. We must set a target, and beyond it we must not go.

2.48 a.m.

The Joint Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Mervyn Pike): I am sure we would all agree that we have had a very useful and constructive debate on this very important subject. There has been complete agreement among my hon. Friends, and my right hon Friend and I, like them, are sorry that hon. Members opposite have not contributed to the debate to make clear where they stand in the matter.
We accept that Commonwealth immigration has always been a controversial subject on which widely differing views have been expressed. The Government introduced the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill and saw it passed into law against strong criticism and opposition. In these circumstances it is fair to claim that there is now a much better appreciation of the reasons which led the Government to introduce it, and that the control has been operated for two years with remarkably little complaint from Commonwealth citizens. In particular, the fears expressed that the control would hamper the flow of visitors and students


from the Commonwealth have not been realised.
Hon. Members opposite voted against the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, 1963, which renewed the powers to control Commonwealth immigration given by Part I of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act for a further period of 12 months ending 31st December, 1964.
I know that my hon. Friends would not wish me to comment in full on the arguments that they have brought out. They have sought to underline some of the grave problems which we face now and in the future. I have listened very carefully to all that they have had to say, and I will draw their arguments to the attention of my right hon. Friend, who, it will be appreciated, watches this problem closely. I should, however, like to comment on one or two of the things which my hon. Friends have mentioned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) mentioned, in particular, the question of dependants. The Act gives the right of admission to wives and children under 16 accompanying or joining the head of the household. It is the common pattern of immigration for the man to come first and for his wife and children to wish to join him later. The figures show that 60 per cent. of those Commonwealth citizens admitted to take up residence in recent months were dependants. In the six months January to June, 1964, a total of 14,842 Commonwealth citizens were admitted as dependants, including 4,410 from the West Indies, 3,405 from India and 2,847 from Pakistan.
While we cannot say precisely how many of these were wives and children under 16, and how many were in other categories—for example, common law wives and children aged 16 or 17 joining parents—a recent sample check at the ports has confirmed that the great majority of those coming as dependants are wives and children under 16 with a statutory right of admission. I would remind my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Glyn) that the Government have stated that the number of dependants is taken into account in considering the number of vouchers to be issued.

Mr. N. Pannell: There are countries a man is permitted four wives. Are all

these wives allowed in to join such an immigrant, or is he allowed only one wife according to the custom in this country?

Miss Pike: I would not wish to mislead my hon. Friend—I am not sure of this point, but I am under the impression that one wife is the maximum.
As hon. Members are aware, Commonwealth citizens coming for employment are required to obtain vouchers from the Ministry of Labour and the issue of vouchers is very strictly controlled. For example, more stringent rules governing qualifications required for the issue of Category B vouchers on grounds of special skills were announced last December and the number of voucher holders arriving has fallen in the last six months as compared with 1963. The figures given in the White Paper on Statistics show that 30,000 voucher holders arrived in 1963. The number arriving in the first six months of 1964 was 7,186, including 1,883 from India and 1,807 from Pakistan.
As my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale pointed out, these vouchers are issued in three categories. Category A vouchers are issued to those Commonwealth citizens who have been genuinely offered a job in this country and who, in the opinion of the Ministry of Labour, are coming to this country for that job. Category B vouchers are issued to those with special skills. Category C vouchers go to others on a first come, first served basis.
Anxiety has been expressed about the issue of vouchers in this third category to persons without special skills or jobs to come to. Category C vouchers are, however, only issued to the extent that priority applications do not take up the total number of vouchers available for issue in any given period. Few category C vouchers have been issued in the last few months.
As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in answer to a supplementary question on 9th July:
The vast majority of those who obtain vouchers are either people who have definite jobs to come to or some special skill which qualifies them to be of a use to this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July 1964; Vol. 698, c. 618.]


My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham also asked about numbers. I draw his attention to the Written Answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale on 13th July, in which he said:
During the four weeks from 30th May to 26th June, 1964, 863 vouchers were issued in category A, 525 in category B, and 212 in category C."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1964; Vol. 698, c. 160.]
All of us are concerned about the employment problems and prospects of those who come. For some little while before the introduction of the control the unemployment figures suggested that Commonwealth immigrants were coming here more quickly than they could be absorbed into employment. This is not the case now. The number of Commonwealth immigrants unemployed is now only about a quarter of the figure of 38,000 in the summer of 1962. This shows the success of the control, judged from the standpoint of employment.
Equally, the fact that over 300,000 people have applied for vouchers and have not so far received them is an indication, if one is still needed—and I doubt whether one is—of the need for the control and of the very great pressure to come here, especially from India and Pakistan. Hon. Members will recall that the Minister of Labour recently announced that, owing to the enormous number on the waiting list, no further applications for non-priority vouchers would for the time being be accepted from India or Pakistan.
The Government have always made it clear that their object was not to stop Commonwealth immigration, but to control it, and they recognise that there is a wide divergence of opinion about the

number of immigrants who should be admitted to this country. The immediate demand for labour has to be weighed against the social problems created by the growth of immigrant communities which tend to concentrate in certain parts of the country and to exacerbate existing social problems. This, of course, is what my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) were saying. It is this concentration which makes the problem of assimilation more difficult, and the difficulty of the housing problem is also increased.
Net immigration from the Commonwealth in 1963 was 66,000 and the net figure for the first six months of 1964 was as high as 49,000, including about 7,000 each from India and the West Indies and 6,000 from Pakistan. The figure of 49,000 includes a net inward movement of 17,000 from Canada, Australia and New Zealand in the first six months of 1964. The traffic from these countries is seasonal and it is likely that many of those who have come to this country are visitors who will return home at the end of their visit.
Because of these seasonal factors, it is not useful to pay too much regard to the net figures for a short period, but it is clear that the general rate of immigration has increased. Ways of controlling immigration within the framework of our present law are under constant study and a close watch is being kept on these figures.
All I can say tonight, and I am sure that it is all that my hon. Friends would expect of me, is that my right hon. Friend is watching this very carefully and that I will see that the views of hon. Members are conveyed to him.

ARMY EDUCATIONAL CORPS (EX-W.O. GREENSPAN)

2.57 a.m.

Mr. A. R. Wise: First, may I make an apology to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force for bringing him here at this slightly advanced hour? On the other hand, may I welcome him by saying that his presence is an admission by the War Office, at long last, of its immensely inferior place in the scheme of things these days? The Army has given way to the dominant arm, and I have no doubt that at moments of emergency the Air Force will now perform its vital duty.
The story I have to unfold is largely concerned with the image of itself which the Army is giving through the War Office and the effect of the recruiting figures, which are always on the borderline of adequacy even now. The story begins in 1957, when it was decided very considerably to reduce the strength of the Army, and Army Council Instruction 385 of 1957 was issued to govern procedure.
At this time, Warrant Officer Greenspan was serving in the Army Educational Corps and in due course he was given warning of his impending discharge on 1st September, 1961, in the following terms:
In accordance with War Office letter 18/GEN/3748(P.A.3(a))"—
which is the light-hearted way the War Office has of referring to its personal letters between sections of the Department—
the above-named"—
which is Warrant Officer Greenspan—
will be compulsorily prematurely discharged"—
and I underline this—
under the terms of A.C.I. 385/57.
On 12th September, 1961, 12 days later, the Army Education Centre told the Combined Records Office that Warrant Officer Greenspan was a little anxious about his situation because he did not consider that the A.C.I. in question, if paragraphs 27 and 20 were read in conjunction, referred to him, and as he could not be selected for premature

discharge, he would, by inference, not be entitled to redundancy terms under that A.C.I.
On 14th September, 1961, the D.A.G., Rhine Army, replied that this warrant officer was eligible. On 16th September, Mr. Greenspan forwarded the necessary Appendix to the A.C.I. and expected to be told about his position in regard to redundancy. On 1st November, 1961, no answer being received, the Army Education Centre wrote and asked whether any reply was likely to be forthcoming.
On 9th November of that year, a reply came from the Army Pensions Office:
Reference to your memorandum, I am to inform you that the case of the above-named Warrant Officer is held up pending a ruling from higher authority on the rates to be applied on this type of engagement.
In other words, it was the first admission that it was getting itself into a jam.
On 5th December, 1961, after some telephone conversations between the Education Centre and Headquarters, 1st Corps, copies of all relevant correspondence were forwarded once with the following comment:
Although the Army Pensions Office letter states that a decision would be given as soon as it is received, the extent of the delay in this case is considerable (i.e., from 16th September).
This really must rank as one of the understatements of all time, seeing that it was now December.
The same letter states:
other Educational Corps other ranks have known their redundancy terms since July.
I rather fear that the uncharitable could assume that the authorities had, in fact, discovered what has always been the basis of Mr. Greenspan's case, that he was being improperly discharged under an A.C.I. which did not refer to him. In other words, a bureaucrat in a Department had made an idiot of himself; and we have recently seen an example of how thoroughly this can be done.
An answer eventually came on 12th December, 1961, and it stated:
It is emphasised that the figures given relate solely to pre-discharge under the White Paper and the A.C.I. quoted above …".
I stress "under … the A.C.I. quoted …". The answer went on:
and must not be applied to termination of service in any other circumstances.


A little later we shall see the War Office saying that this warrant officer was not discharged under A.C.I. 385, and that, therefore, these figures do not refer to him.
It was about this time that I started corresponding with the War Office. I received on 31st October, in reply to my second letter about this warrant officer, a letter saying:
Warrant Officer Greenspan says that he cannot be discharged under A.C.I. 385/57, but in fact this A.C.I. is not the authority for his discharge and I am sorry if he has been given the impression that it is.
Well, you can take your choice from that. At one time the Department said that it was; now it says that it was not. I seems hardly surprising, in view of the quotation from the Army Pensions Office letter which I have just given, that the impression which Mr. Greenspan should not have had was firmly in his mind.
After further correspondence I received another letter from the War Office which said:
First, I must make it clear that Mr. Greenspan was not discharged under the terms of A.C.I. 385/57.
If my hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary, who is carrying this burden gallantly, but under some difficulty, will cast his mind back to the quotation I gave from the letter from the Combined Record Office letter of 1st September, he will see that this is precisely what Mr. Greenspan was discharged under. If I may refresh his memory, it was stated that he would be
compulsorily prematurely discharged under the terms of A.C.I. 385/57.
It does not seem to me to be either my job or Mr. Greenspan's to sort out the rather ludicrous confusion between the various branches of the Army in this matter, and it really does not seem that either of us can decide, other than by spinning a coin, whether the Record Office or the War Office is telling us the truth. We have two quite incompatible statements. It would appear to me to be at least fair that the Army should accept that it made a classic blunder and should try to redeem the blunder by giving Mr. Greenspan at least a gratuity which other Educational Corps warrant officers got.
After further correspondence, I got another letter from the War Office on 10th July, 1963—two years having passed since the beginning of the controversy—which said:
Looking at the matter in retrospect, I think that it was unfortunate that A.C.I. 385/57 was ever mentioned in connection with soldiers of the R.A.E.C. who were being prematurely discharged.
It may have been unfortunate, but it was not my fault, and it was not Mr. Greenspan's fault, that this began, and I agree warmly with that statement.
The letter continued:
In view of the confusion that has arisen, it is now apparent that it would have been better to have issued separate instructions.
This, again, is an opinion which cannot be faulted, but, of course, it was not done; these separate instructions were not issued. It seems to me, therefore, that the War Office is bound by its previous statement. The letter went on to say that the authority for Mr. Greenspan's discharge was Queen's Regulation 61. It stressed the obvious by saying that
This, indeed, is the only authority for the discharge of any soldier.
That is a partial truth. It is true that Queen's Regulations are the only authority for the discharge of any soldier, but it specifically states that Queen's Regulations cannot be brought into action without a definite authority. However, no such authority had been quoted up to this moment, and on 25th November, 1963, I received a letter from the War Office which said that the authority to use Queen's Regulations, paragraph 503, was given to the officer in charge of Combined Records in a War Office memorandum, the enormously long reference of which I will not repeat.
The same letter said:
At no time have we said that Mr. Greenspan was discharged under the authority of an Army Council Instruction.
Going back to what I started with, it is obvious that originally the War Office had said that that was exactly what he had been discharged under. In view of this, I regard this statement as one of the most outrageous ever made by a Government Department.
I then asked whether I could see the memorandum. I regret to say that the War Office refused to let me see it, on the ground that it was of a confidential


nature. I did not say that it was a classified document in any way, and I felt slightly hurt that after spending about 14 years in various forms of intelligence, I should be considered a security risk even to see a confidential document. I am quite unable to understand why it should not be shown to a Member of Parliament. I might mention en passant that I tried to raise the question of privilege and discovered from Mr. Speaker to my horror that this House had no power to compel the production of this document, an omission which we shall have to remedy.
I am much more unable to understand why Mr. Greenspan was never shown the authority for his discharge. This seems to me to be a curious breach of the decencies. It is not that he did not ask to see it, because he did. There is no doubt that this refusal to be frank about what the War Office was doing must leave a nasty smell behind it. I cannot understand why the Department does not try to dissipate this.
From this same letter I extract another quotation, mainly for its humorous content:
I can understand that the stock letter used by the Army Pensions Office to notify him of his awards may have been rather confusing. The stock letter was intended to be used primarily for notifying awards to soldiers who qualified for the normal terms of pension by being discharged from an engagement committing them to at least 17 years' reckonable service.
When the War Office threw Mr. Greenspan out, he had 16 years' and 329 days' service. So this was hairsplitting.
The clear fact appears to be this, that Mr. Greenspan was discharged with an unblemished record and an exemplary character, and he was a warrant officer, and in spite of this, he was not allowed to see the authority for his discharge or even able to see who signed it. There can be no doubt that really the authority for his discharge was this A.C.I. 385, and this, after specifying to which warrant officers it applied, said in paragraph 27 that warrant officers other than those classes mentioned in paragraph 20 will not be selected for premature discharge. This shows that the redundancy scheme is not meant to apply to men in Mr. Greenspan's position at all. Therefore, he must have been discharged under another authority covering the Educa-

tional Corps only, but there is no sign of this anywhere.
For premature discharge from his engagement Mr. Greenspan received the sum of £79 3s. 7d. How was this sum ascertained? Presumably all payments by the War Office can only be made on the authority of a Royal Warrant. The only one promulgated on redundancy was Army Order 139 of 1957 which, the War Office admits, does not apply to Mr. Greenspan. So it has to face the fact that has improperly handed over £79 odd for which it had no Royal Warrant. I think that that needs a little explanation as well.
It really is a hard case, and it does not do the Army's image any good. It throws my mind back to an occasion when I really lost my temper, in 1944, when, after a very meagre rise in pay for the Armed Forces, I came home on leave to hear the War Office blandly explaining that there were a number of fringe benefits to Army pay, including free accommodation, whereas at that time about half the Army were living in slit trenches. It really was not a very generous gesture. This has been one fault throughout of the War Office: it never does make a very generous gesture.
Some time ago, a couple of thousand years or so, a Gallic chieftain, Brennus, was weighing out the tribute of Rome, and when he was accused that he was not being fair he flung his sword into the scale. May I do this now, in concluding? I have conducted this war for 2½ years. I just point out to the War Office that it need not suspect, merely because this is the end of a Parliament, that this is the end of the war. I can assure the Department that it is going on for at least another five years.

3.14 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Julian Ridsdale): I have been asked by my colleagues in the Army Department to reply for them.
I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) on his tenacity, and on the manner in which he fights for his constituents. As Under-Secretary of State for Air, I know that he pressed me over the case of Mr. Hughes. After looking through this Army Department case I am afraid that it is another one of those difficult


ones about where one draws the line. The great misfortune is that it has to be drawn somewhere, and someone must always be so close as to make him feel that he has been hard done by. I have the greatest sympathy for those in that position, but alas, in Government one cannot please all the people.
Let me deal with the details of this case. Perhaps it would be helpful to the House if I were to explain briefly the reasons which led to the decision to make the Royal Army Educational Corps an all-officer corps since this was the occasion for Mr. Greenspan's premature discharge from the Army. The Army needed professionally qualified instructors, and it had proved impossible to obtain enough as other ranks. Perhaps I may enlarge on that. It was considered that to obtain the maximum benefit for the Army education service—which is responsible for such tasks as the education of soldiers at unit level; the education of boys at Army apprentices' schools and junior leaders' units; the education of Army children overseas; and language training—the Royal Army Educational Corps instructors should be fully quaified teachers.
It had become apparent that, when National Service came to an end, the Army would be quite unable to recruit enough Regular soldiers with these qualifications. Only by offering suitable candidates officer status could service in the Army be made attractive enough to compete with the conditions offered in civil employment to men with the qualifications required. The Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, which already had all-officer education corps. The decision to make the Royal Army Educational Corps an all-officer corps was taken after full and careful consideration. When it was taken the Director of Army Education wrote personally to every member of the corps explaining the reasons for the decision and the possibilities for their future in and out of the corps.
I think it fair to say that everything was done by the Directorate of Army Education and the War Office to go into and ease the problems which the decision to make the corps an all-officer corps necessarily caused some individuals who were warrant officers like Mr. Greenspan or N.C.O.s in the corps.

Mr. Greenspan served in the Army from 5th December, 1946, until 24th March, 1949, as a National Serviceman. He then enlisted on a short service engagement—on 11th April, 1949—and subsequently re-enlisted on 17th November, 1951, on a 12-year engagement of five years with the Colours and seven years with the Reserve. It is important to set out the different nature of these engagements because it is on the type of engagement a man has, and which Mr. Greenspan had, that the grounds for giving him a gratuity and pension when he is discharged from the Service are based.
I should like to deal, also, with what I feel are two important points in this case: the reasons for Mr. Greenspan's discharge and the earlier change—at his own request—of the type of engagement he was serving on. First, I must make clear—because there has been confusion about this—that Mr. Greenspan was not discharged under A.C.I. 385 of 1957. He was discharged quite legally under the terms of Queen's Regulations 1961, Serial XXVI, "on reduction of establishment"—

Mr. Wise: There was still no authority for bringing that into force.

Mr. Ridsdale: Authority to implement this provision was given by the War Office to the Officer-in-Charge, Combined Record Office, on 6th July, 1961. This exercise of authority by the War Office was perfectly proper and in accordance with the terms of the Regulations.
Here, I think that I might with advantage turn aside for a moment to look at the point my hon. Friend raised about the decision my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Defence for the Army made not to let him see the Combined Record Office letter he mentioned. The House can be reassured that there is nothing sinister about this. As was explained to my hon. Friend in the Answer to his Question earlier this year, the letter is not a classified document, but it is confidential in the sense that it is an internal departmental document which, by well-established practice, should not be disclosed outside official circles. Government practice on this is as outlined by the then Lord Chancellor in another place on 16th June, 1956. It is one of a class of documents whose


disclosure would not be in the public interest.
To return to Mr. Greenspan's discharge, my hon. Friend has expressed considerable concern at the confusion he feels has arisen from the references to A.C.I. 385 of 1957 which, he feels, were misleading. That A.C.I. was concerned with men who were to become redundant as the result of the decision to reduce the size of the Army, which was announced in the Defence White Paper of April, 1957. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army feels that perhaps in the light of hindsight it would have been preferable not to mention it in connection with soldiers of the R.A.E.C. who were being prematurely discharged because of the decision to make it an all-officer corps.
Perhaps I can put the matter into clearer perspective if I explain why the A.C.I. was mentioned. This A.C.I., which referred only to soldiers who were likely to be declared redundant because of the planned rundown of the Army, was neither an authority for discharge nor for the payment of compensation. Its purpose was, among other things, to set out the principles under which soldiers were to be selected for premature discharge, to invite volunteers for premature discharge and to inform soldiers how they could obtain advice about their position.
The only reason it ever became in any way applicable to men of the R.A.E.C. was that soldiers of that corps who were serving on engagements which, had they been serving in any other part of the Army, would have brought them within the field for consideration for premature discharge, were given the same facilities for obtaining information. The compensation paid to such men and the advice and assistance available to them was the same as that for men from the rest of the Army who were being prematurely discharged as redundant.
It was felt that as A.C.I. 385 of 1957 was well known in the Army, the information it contained would be useful to soldiers of the R.A.E.C. who were being prematurely discharged, but, as I have said, in view of the confusion that has arisen, it is now apparent that it would have been better to have issued separate instructions. This does not mean

that there was anything improper about Mr. Greenspan's discharge. Mr. Greenspan was discharged prematurely for a quite different reason.
By September, 1957—although a final decision had not been taken—it seemed reasonably certain that the R.A.E.C. would become an all-officer corps from 1st April, 1963. As a consequence, it was a prudent step to refuse to extend the service of other ranks whose engagements were due to end after 31st March, 1963, unless they were willing to transfer to another corps and were found suitable for transfer. They were, in addition, considered for commissions or offered teacher training courses.
Mr. Greenspan was, unfortunately, not educationally qualified for either of these alternatives and there is no record that he applied for transfer to another corps. In these circumstances, it was inevitable that Mr. Greenspan had to be discharged before 31st March, 1963. It was decided that members of the R.A.E.C. whose service had to be prematurely terminated because of that decision should be given compensation as if their discharge had been necessitated by the rundown of the Army.
This scheme of compensation, which was promulgated by a Royal Warrant published as Army Order 139 of 1957, applied, however, only to men who were serving on 22-year engagements or those on other types of engagements who would, at the end of the service to which they were committed, have at least 17 years' reckonable service for pension. For members of the R.A.E.C. who did not satisfy these conditions, special compensation terms were provided.
Men who, like Mr. Greenspan, had served five or more years, would receive £100 for each year of service for which they were committed, but were unable to complete, in addition to any gratuity for which they might be eligible by length of service. Men with less than five years' service would receive £50 for each year of service completed. Unfortunately, Mr. Greenspan was not serving on a 22-year engagement and, had he served until 16th November, 1963, when his last engage-men was due to end, he would have been 36 days short of 17 years' reckonable service. He did not, therefore, qualify for compensation under the terms of


Army Order 139 of 1957, and fell to be treated under the special arrangements I have just described.
It may help if I restate the position with regard to Mr. Greenspan's engagement. In June, 1954, when he was serving on an engagement of five years with the Colours and seven with the Reserve, he considered changing to a 22-year engagement. At that time, there were two courses open to him. First, he could change directly to a pensionable 22-year engagement, which would have run from 11th April, 1949, when his continuous Colour service began or, secondly, he could initially extend his service to complete 12 years which would not qualify him for a pension, but then, at a later date, change to a 22-year engagement. Under the second alternative he would qualify for the immediate payment of a bounty of £100 when he extended to complete 12 years' service. The Officer-in-Charge of Combined Records explained these alternatives to headquarters troops, Malta, in a letter dated 22nd June, 1954.
In August, 1954., Mr. Greenspan extended his service to complete 12 years with the Colours, and accordingly became committed to serve until 16th November, 1963, and received the £100 bounty. It was then open to him to apply to change to a 22-year engagement, as the Officer-in-Charge of Combined Records had advised, but he made no inquiry about this until October, 1957, by which time the uncertainty about the future of the Royal Army Educational Corps had made it necessary to refuse extensions of service beyond 1st April, 1963.
As my hon. Friend said, when Mr. Greenspan left the Army on 31st January, 1963, he received compensation of just over £79. This was to cover the period by which his actual service fell short of the service to which he was committed, and was calculated under the special arrangement I have mentioned. He also received a normal Service gratuity of £305 9s. 8d., which he had earned by his service.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army is sorry that Mr. Greenspan feels that he has in some way been done out of compensation to which he thinks that he was entitled, but it is clear that this is not

so. Had he elected in 1954 to undertake the 22-year engagement the position would have been different, but the fact is that he did not do so; he elected to complete 12 years, and take the immediate bounty of £100. He may consider himself unfortunate at having narrowly missed the greater benefits for which he would have been eligible had he satisfied the conditions of Army Order 139 of 1957, but there are no grounds on which he could be treated exceptionally.
My right hon. Friend, now the Minister of Defence for the Army, and the Under-Secretary of State, have both explained in letters to my hon. Friend why Mr. Greenspan could not be allowed to extend his service to complete a pensionable engagement, and how, since he was either unable or unwilling to follow any of the other opportunities open to soldiers of the R.A.E.C. there was no alternative but to discharge him as redundant.
There were numbers of the corps who did not qualify for compensation granted to those discharged as a result of the general rundown of the Army, and Mr. Greenspan was, of course, one of them. Special terms of compensation, however, were obtained for these people. In view of the fact that the Army had no alternative but to discharge Mr. Greenspan, and that special terms of compensation were obtained for him and those in a similar position, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State cannot agree that there is anything at all improper in the way in which the Army has dealt with Mr. Greenspan.
It is true that he missed the greater benefits of the compensation paid to those discharged as a result of the general rundown of the Army by a very small margin, but the line has to be drawn somewhere, as I have said, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army can see no grounds for treating Mr. Greenspan differently from the other soldiers who were in the same position as himself. However, I should like to assure my hon. Friend that I will draw the attention of my colleagues in the Army Department to the points which he has raised in the debate, and I wish him good fortune in sharpening his sword in the coming months.

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION

3.31 a.m.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: I am sure that Mr. Greenspan had a rotten deal of it, and it cannot be much comfort to him to think that he has been detaining the House at this hour of the morning. Nor can it be a comfort to the Minister of State for Education and Science to go on a nocturnal tour of a number of hopeful universities. In view of the rather stormy start that he had at Stirling I should like to assure the right hon. Gentleman that if he chooses to announce a university for Tees-side he can do it in a Press release, at Question Time, or in a Written Answer, or in whatever way he likes and we shall make no protest.
The Robbins Committee recommended the establishment of five things called Special Institutions for Scientific and Technical Education and Research, mercifully abbreviated to "SISTERS", as the British counterpart of great institutions like the M.I.T. and the Technical High Schools at Zurich and Delft. They were to be largely post-graduate institutions and so differing from the new technological universities developed from the colleges of advanced technology. They were to have 50 per cent. or more of students and staff in technological subjects, 25 per cent. in science and 25 per cent. in other subjects, and, therefore, they would differ, also from traditional universities. This concentration of excellence in technology, the Robbins Committee felt, was required by this country:
… to demonstrate beyond all doubt that it is prepared to give to technology the prominence which the economic needs of the future will surely demand.
Only one of the five SISTERs was to be a new institution and it is to this that I wish to draw attention tonight.
The whole concept of SISTERs has come under heavy fire in the academic world from other institutions, perhaps a little jealous and fearful of their own position. I certainly welcome the development of the existing named institutions as SISTERs and wish them every success—the Imperial College, the Manchester College of Science and Tech-

nology, Strathclyde, and an unnamed college of advanced technology.
All universities, all colleges of advanced technology, do not have the same job to do. Academic apartheid is anathema but specialisation is essential. If British students are denied access to the highest levels of research in this country they will go abroad. If we do not provide SISTERs here we shall find that we shall lose students who will seek them elsewhere. They will flock largely to the U.S., or perhaps back again to Europe as they did before the war. It is as simple as that.
The Robbins Committee warned of the inevitable academic reaction in its very balanced statement on academic freedom in paragraph 722 of its Report when it said:
Public policy does not necessarily involve the development of all institutions of higher education at an equal pace. There must be selection. There must be the judicious fostering of some more than others. Our recommendation regarding the development of the Special Institutions for Scientific and Technological Education and Research is a case in point. To decide all such problems there must be a body with power both to allocate and also to deny.
I hope that the Government are not now getting cold feet over this plainly anticipated difficulty foreseen by the Robbins Committee.
Since the publication of the Robbins Report the U.G.C. has found that existing universities are far more willing to expand than ever the Robbins Committee expected. The universities have accepted wholeheartedly, and rather surprisingly, the efficiency of size. Perhaps they are stimulated by the thought "no expansion, no money." Whatever the cause, the result is certainly welcome. Why, then, not concentrate on existing institutions? The equipment, staff and buildings will perhaps be used more efficiently than equipment, staff and buildings would be in an embryo institution in the earliest stages of its development. The argument runs that the time to establish the next generation of new universities to cope with the much higher numbers of students of the 1970s will be in the projected lull in the expansion of student numbers between 1968 and 1971. But even for this period, the location of these new universities must be decided in perhaps 1965 to 1966.
However, there are other considerations than this in the case of the SISTER, first of all, that of cost. Mr. K. L. Stretch, the Vice-Principal of the Birmingham College of Advanced Technology, in an interesting article in "Minerva," has estimated that the capital cost of SISTER facilities and residence for a SISTER near the centre of a large city is £6,900 per student place, as compared with £4,800 in a small town—something like 50 per cent. more in the centre of a city. In addition, the city centre provides a less efficient working environment because of time spent travelling and the greater shortage of space. Even assuming the initial cost, say, of £2 million in establishing a new institution, the total cost of development would be cheaper in a new establishment after the first thousand or so students than it will be at Imperial College, or in Manchester or Birmingham.
To realise these lower costs, a SISTER does not need to be buried in the heart of the country. It does not need to become a Baedeker university like the last generation of new universities. It could still be, as the Robbins Committee would like it to be, within four miles or so of the centre of a major industrial area if the right site is chosen.
The second and more important reason for getting a move on with the new SISTER now is that we have to face the liabilities of our otherwise excellent academic traditions. The two most serious inadequacies in technology in Britain today are, first, that it is not pressed through to the point of profitable and worth-while application, and, secondly, that technology does not attract as many of the most able students as it does in our industrial competitor countries overseas, either in America or on the continent of Europe. British students prefer pure science and, as a second best, the more glamorous technologies.
Whatever may be the merits of the existing balance of institutions such as Imperial College, the influence of the ancient universities and colleges of advanced technology, they are still not able to overcome these faults, and some new initiative is required. It is not simply a matter of our national bread and butter. The vitality of higher education

itself suffers. It was von Neumann, the great American mathematician, who pointed this out clearly in a remark that he made about mathematics, and it is equally true of the whole spectrum of science and technology.
Von Neumann said:
As a mathematical discipline travels far from its empirical source … it is beset with very great dangers. It becomes more and more pure aestheticising, more and more art for art's sake. … There is a grave danger that the subject will develop along the line of least resistance, that the stream, so far from its source, will separate into a multitude of insignificant branches, and that the discipline will become a disorganised mass of details and complexities. … At the inception the style is usually classical; when it shows signs of becoming baroque, then the danger signal is up.
There is, perhaps, a touch of Baroque about Imperial College today. It is difficult to see what else could happen in South Kensington, with nothing to study but traffic jams. We can afford a high-powered school of rather abstract engineering at Imperial College provided that there are other places which are keeping in closer touch with practical problems.
In Manchester, one cannot but admire the concept of comprehensive campus development, with all sides of higher education gathered together in the heart of a great city. But other concepts are needed where the environment is not the world of education as a whole, important though this is, but is the outside world of industry and commerce and the way life is lived there.
In the British academic atmosphere, it is not surprising, though it is none the less distressing, to hear that the C.A.T.s are trying to copy the universities, that the teaching methods in the C.A.T.s are tending to become more conservative and slipping into the mould set by the university. No doubt, our Scottish friends know what they are up to, but it is ominous that the name of the Royal College of Science and Technology should have been changed to the University of Strathclyde, and that the new university which Scotland has just been given should have been put in the medieval town of Stirling.
In all these circumstances, there is an overwhelming case for making a clean break somewhere. The Robbins Report pleads for
a new foundation which could experiment boldly, unfettered by existing affiliations


either with universities or with further education.
It is no secret that it was Sir Patrick Linstead, Rector of Imperial College, who pleaded for this on the Robbins Committee itself. The main stream of the British academic tradition will certainly continue, and I should be very disappointed if it were otherwise for it is an admirable one; but there is room—indeed, there is urgent need—for bold experiment in a new SISTER.
At this hour, I can do no more than mention some directions of useful experiment which are now being discussed in industry and outside the academic world as well as inside. The organisation of the SISTER might be not along the traditional divisions in departments but take the form of a series of projects chosen on a cost-benefit basis, each with its own programme, and a time-scale, and directed to a practical end. These projects might be used as scaffolding for teaching and, above all, in motivating the students. There could be continuous operation throughout the year, not according to the termly spasms of present university life. The majority of the staff could be on industrial terms, that is, on temporary but highly-paid appointments.
The first year of university life would be spent in sufficiently general studies to prevent students committing themselves to pure or applied sciences before gaining the experience on which to judge. The staff would be trained in teaching methods, not leaving this to haphazard development by experience. The use of teaching machines would be a matter of course. There would be higher degrees for research and development work in industry itself. The SISTER would operate as a commercial concern, undertaking sponsored research, selling the results of its research where appropriate, and interesting itself in production and marketing as well as in research and development.
All these are developments of the kind now going on round the M.I.T. today, perhaps rather overwhelmingly in the defence world but, nevertheless, transferable to the civil world of this country. There could be projects involving investigations into housing, education, health, employment, incomes, voluntary or-

ganisations at home and abroad—witness the tremendous programmes in Asian and African studies now in the great American institutes—all these efforts, these projects, undertaken both for their own sake and for their educational value for the students themselves.
Once an institution in this country started operating on such lively lines as these, it would attract students to technology who would otherwise never come to this subject at all. It would attract staff who would never have thought of teaching. It would also stimulate technological education elsewhere in more traditional institutions.
The real worry today is whether the University Grants Committee is properly equipped to consider such an institution in its totality. Out of 17 members of the U.G.C., only two are engineers, and these are both very distinguished professors. The technology sub-committee of the U.G.C. is very distinguished, but it is presided over by the chairman of the U.G.C. who is himself an arts man. Furthermore, the technology sub-committee has met only once a year for the past six years. Its workings are even more Olympian than those of the Royal Society itself. In the circumstances the Government are clearly bound to give some guidance as to the wider public interest in the development of higher technological education.
I know that every town clerk from Inverness to Falmouth is expecting and wanting a university today, but for the new SISTER in particular, the location is important, if not crucial. It should not be put down in an industrial or scientific vacuum. It should be recognised that it will stimulate further industrial and economic growth. It should go where this growth is desired.
For the SISTERs, London, Manchester and Strathclyde is a good start. Birmingham, or at least the Midlands, is an inevitable fourth, with the development of some existing institution. The South-West and South Wales have four universities and two C.A.T.s, while in the North-East we have two universities and no C.A.T. We look forward to the development of three major colleges of technology, Rutherford, Sunderland, and Constantine, but they are not SISTERs.
We wish Scotland well with its new university and with the movement and


expansion of the Heriot Watt College, but we cannot help noticing that the Scots get one university institution for every 800,000 people, while the North-East gets one for 1,700,000 people—twice the number of people per university institution that there is in Scotland.
Yet in the North-East we have both modern and traditional industry and there is an urgent need for more. The case for putting the new SISTER in the North-East on general and regional grounds; seems strong. Within the North-East on Tees-side we are in the largest concentration of population in the country without any form of university institution, yet we are so highly developed that we have £600 million invested in the greatest concentration of modern capital intensive industry in the country, and this industry is growing at a rate of more than £50 million a year, considerably greater than the total university expansion programme in the country.
In the first quarter of this year, 25 per cent. of the new construction orders for industry were for the North-East, and the greater part of this from Tees-side, yet, paradoxically, we are short of jobs because our industry is so highly automated. As for our contribution to the national economy, from Tees-side alone we export more than the whole of the aircraft industry, and yet we get no help at all from the Government in research.
If anybody should think that, while we are hard working and worthy people, we are a lumpey lot, unsuitable for housing a new university, I would be glad to arrange for him to be dazzled by science and research in a dozen Tees-side works and laboratories. If anyone thinks that the North-east is ugly, he should come and see the clear skies, the heather, and the dales full of bluebells and daffodils, with not a soul nor a chimney in sight. The view is no different from what it was before the Roman occupation of Britain.
In short, on Tees-side we can offer as good an environment as any for a university. We can offer a unique environment for the new SISTER which, in the interests of education and research, in the interests of the national and the local economy and in equity to the people of the North-East as a whole, I hope that

the Government will not be long in taking up.
I ask the Minister tonight three specific questions. First, what is the attitude of the Government to the Robbins proposal for the new SISTER? The Government have made no statement about this and I am sure that many people in the university world would be interested to hear. Secondly, how strongly do the Government favour the location of new universities, and particularly the new SISTER, in industrial areas needing further expansion and renewal? Thirdly, specifically in relation to our interests in the North-East, will the Minister indicate to the University Grants Committee that he looks forward to receiving an early and a positive reply to the representations it has received on the establishment of the new SISTER?

Mr. Timothy Kitson: I have a suspicion that when the hon. Member refers to Tees-side he is suggesting my constituency as one of the sites for the new SISTER, which I would welcome. When he talks about clear skies over Tees-side, I should point out that his hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. W. T. Rodgers) has just been discussing air pollution over Stockton. I am sure that the pleasant picture that the hon. Member has been painting must refer more to my constituency on Tees-side than to his own.

Dr. Bray: I am grateful to the hon. Member. The troubles about atmospheric pollution are limited to the area to the west and to the immediate south of Stockton. In Nunthorpe, which is in the hon. Member's constituency and where I lived for a number of years, we are quite untroubled by the smell. A little further over towards Guisborough would be one of the possible sites talked about for this new institution. It is entirely outside the atmosphere of industry and no industrial development is either visible or smellable.

3.52 a.m.

The Minister of State for Education and Science (Sir Edward Boyle): I reply for the second time tonight, on this occasion to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray). I know the North-East fairly well. To be fair, some of the most attractive countryside I know there is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) who is


silent on this subject although he will be taking part in the debate on the next one.
In answering the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West, I should begin by reminding the House of what was said in the White Paper last autumn by the Government, when announcing their views on the Robbins Report. They said:
The Government strongly endorse the Report's emphasis on the building up of technological Universities and the development of management studies. They are asking the University Grants Committee for an early report on the further development of Imperial College, London, the Royal College of Science and Technology, Glasgow, and the Manchester College of Science and Technology, on the lines proposed in the Report; and also on the proposal for a completely new technological University.
The present situation is that the Government have now received and are considering the advice both of the University Grants Committee and also of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, whose views they decided to invite. No decision has yet been taken on the recommendations that, first, a college of advanced technology should be developed into a special institution, and, secondly, that an entirely new foundation should be established. These are decisions which must be taken in the light of the advice that the Government are receiving from those two bodies and also in the context of the university expansion programme as a whole for the next 10 years.
I would, however, tell the House that it is not customary to publish the advice that the Government receive from the University Grants Committee, but with regard to the advice that the Government have received from the A.C.S.P. my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has asked me to say in this debate that it is his intention that that advice should be published within a month or two from now, and there will, I think, be a convenient occasion for this advice being published. But the hon. Member will realise that because these matters have only recently been received by the Government, because they are still being considered and must, I think, be considered in the context of the university expansion programme as a whole, I cannot go further in answering his specific questions this evening.
I think, though, that there is one point that I ought to make clear, and that is

that there is no question of the Government in any way going back on the rest of what they said in the White Paper last autumn. That is to say, we stand entirely by what we said on that occasion. With permission, I will quote just one more paragraph from the White Paper:
This immediate operation will be the first step in formulating a 10-year programme for the 390,000 full-time higher education places in Universities, Technical Colleges and Training Colleges by 1973–4, which is recommended in the Report. Of this total 218,000 will be in institutions of University status.
I quote that figure on purpose because I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will realise one very real difficulty which perhaps was not quite sufficiently realised by everyone last autumn—namely, that the Robbins recommendations envisaged 197,000 full-time students in institutions of university status by 1967–68, which left a narrow gap to be filled in institutions of university status within six years. But let me make it plain that the Government will firmly plan on the basis that Lord Robbins put in his Report; that is to say, of 218,000 students in institutions of university status by 1973–74 and a total 10-year programme for 390,000 full-time higher education places. In fact, in one respect—I wanted to tell the House this tonight—I am sure we shall do better than Robbins, and, indeed, should expect to do so.
I feel that the Robbins figure of 45,000 full-time advanced students in technical colleges other than C.A.T.s will certainly be an under-estimate of what we shall achieve, not just by deliberate planning but simply because of the demand for full-time advanced courses in these institutions. So there is no question at all of the Government not providing the resources for the 1967–68 expansion figure or going back on the figures for which they are planning in 1973–74. But I think that the decision on SISTERs, which the hon. Member has specifically raised, must be taken in the context of the decision about university expansion as a whole over the next 10 years.

Dr. Bray: Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that there are qualitative considerations about the SISTERs which are not covered merely by the total number of university places, and that to say that the total number of university


places might be met by expansion of existing institutions without the creation of any new institutions might be to remove a vital element from the scheme of development of higher education as put forward by the Robbins Committee, and that if the Government are considering omitting this type of development, he is seriously prejudicing the development of higher education in technology and surely interfering with a part of the national life which is not touched at all by the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy or the University Grants Committee? This should, therefore, be preceded by much wider consultations with industry before any decision is made.

Sir E. Boyle: In view of the fairly wide-ranging speech that the hon. Member made—it was a very attractive speech—I was proposing to say something about technology in general. I accept the point that there are what he called qualitative considerations to be taken into account. I was merely making the point that the decision reached on SISTERs must be reached in the context of the Government's plans, in the light of the Robbins recommendations, for university expansion as a whole. One cannot surely take a decision on SISTERs separately from a decision on the rest of university education.
The hon. Member said a good deal about technology. Despite the late hour, this is a subject of such importance that I should like to respond to his invitation to add a few words about it myself since, as it is not a subject of high party politics, we do not, perhaps, discuss it as much as we might.
On the face of it, the figures today for qualified scientists and technologists are encouraging. The 1956 target was to double the output of qualified scientists and technologists by the later 1960s. We had 10,000 in 1956 and it looks as though the estimated output this year will be 19,500.
The universities and the technical colleges, including the C.A.T.s, are each producing about one half this total. Taken overall, the technologists will account for rather more than half the 1964 figure. At the same time, it would be wrong to be too encouraged by this figure because the A.C.S.P., in its 1963

Report, has spoken with concern about what it calls the increasing tendency for students to pursue pure science in preference to technology and the fact that the academic level of pure science entrants to university is higher than that of technology. Whatever the total output, we cannot be complacent while this trend continues.
We have to remember what the Report says, namely, that technology offers prospects as exciting and challenging as pure science. I hope that it will be generally agreed that my right hon. and learned Friend, during the years he was Minister for Science and now as Secretary of State for the whole Department, has stressed very strongly the importance of technology to the whole of our national life and, indeed, its significance for the education system.
I would mention that my right hon. and learned Friend has asked me in particular to interest myself in and to concern myself with technology as a dimension of the whole of our education in having two parts to the Department. He has always been keen that this should not be thought of as a horizontal division and that the Richmond Terrace unit should concern itself with technology throughout our education system and, therefore, also with applied science and what can be done to encourage the teaching of applied science in schools to abler pupils.
I mention in particular the part the C.A.T.s and what one might call the three institutions named by the Robbins Committee are now contributing towards technology. The number in C.A.T.s has gone up very considerably. Whereas, three years ago, there were 9,000 full time and sandwich students in C.A.T.s, now there are nearly 12,000. It has been the work of the C.A.T.s as pace makers among technical colleges which has led to the steady increase in the Dip. Tech. awards.
It is a fact that, in the last year of the last Parliament—1959–60—there were 129 such awards; in the current academic year, 1963–64, the figure has risen to 1,073. The attainment of the C.A.T.s to university status will mean, of course, that many students who previously would have taken Dip.Tech.


awards, will be reading for internal degrees. We are, however, very keen that the separate excellencies of the Dip.Tech. should not be lost sight of when the C.A.T.s reach university status.
I accept entirely what the hon. Member said about the importance of seeing that within the University Grants Committee higher technical education is properly represented. Apart from what I am sure will be the great contribution of the one or two very distinguished members with a special interest in this work, it is certainly the intention of my right hon. and learned Friend that within the whole of the Richmond Terrace unit and within the administrative structure of the U.G.C. there should be a realisation and concern of the importance of technology in higher education. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this is a matter which is very much in our minds.
I accept what he said about the danger of too many people concentrating on pure mathematics in a spirit perhaps of aestheticism or perhaps even philosophising. I think that it was Bertrand Russell who said that pure mathematics was a subject in which we did not know what we were talking about; nor did we care whether what we said was true. It is the purest of all pure subjects. Consequently, higher technological education and technical education at all levels—about which the House is shortly to consider another subject—are of crucial importance to the nation's future and crucially important if we mean to make the sort of progress in education which is assumed by the Robbins Report.
I should like briefly to refer to the special institutions named by the Robbins Committee. I am not sure that it is always realised just how great has been the increase in the resources which these institutions now command. For example, between 1953 and 1968, Imperial College will have done capital work to the value of £18,500,000 and its numbers will have increased from 1,700 to 3,700. Between 1955 and 1967, Manchester College of Science and Technology will have had a capital outlay of rather more than £6,500,000 and its numbers will have gone up from 800 to 2,700, while Strathclyde College—or, if the hon. Gentleman prefers the old name, Glasgow Royal College of Science

and Technology—over the same 12 years will have had a capital outlay of £4¼ million while the increase in numbers will have been from 1,300 to 3,300.
On an earlier occasion, I said that I fully agreed that as colleges of science and technology reached university status it was very important that they should not lose their own excellencies and that they should not become Baedeker institutions. Personally, I think that this need not happen, and, certainly, all our influence in the Department will be against its happening.
Finally, I should like to say something about technical education and higher technological education in the North-East. I will mention, in particular, the two universities of Durham and Newcastle and then the three technical colleges which make such a major contribution. Between 1955 and 1966, Durham will have had a capital allocation totalling about £5¾ million, of which a little less than £1 million will be for applied science. There is evidence of growing interest in applied science as the university becomes separated from Newcastle and of course Dr. Christopherson, Warden of Durham Colleges and the future Vice-Chancellor of the University, is himself an engineer.
Between 1955 and 1966, Newcastle University will have received capital allocations of £9 million, of which £3,700,000 will be for engineering and applied science, and a considerable extra sum for pure science. It is only fair to say that this university has always been very strong in science and technology and this tendency will be reinforced by the present trend of capital investment.
Quite apart from the Robbins expansion, from the extra money from Robbins over the next two or three years, Newcastle will expand fast on the applied science side. In addition to that, there are the three major technical colleges. We cannot now debate over again the whole story of higher technical education in the North-East, on which I think the hon. Member will agree I have received my fair share of deputations and explained the situation often enough.
But I would like to pay tribute to the notable part that Sunderland, Rutherford and the Constantine College, at Middlesbrough, all play in providing higher technical education in the North-East. I do not think that it is perhaps


always realised that Constantine, as well as Rutherford and Sunderland, makes a real contribution to university work. I regret that in answering a Question the other week I did not bring this out as I intended. But let me make it quite plain tonight that Constantine, along with Sunderland and Rutherford, plays a full part in higher technical education.
I regret that I cannot say more to the hon. Gentleman tonight on the particular matter he has asked me about, but I hope that I have said enough to show that the Government are deeply concerned about the progress of technology, and that in the North-East, as well as other areas, considerable sums of money are being spent and considerable interest shown.

Dr. Bray: I am sure that what the right hon. Gentleman has said will be very discouraging to people on Tees-side and to people in industry generally, who are very unhappy about the progress of education and research in higher technology. Will he give an assurance that if he has decided not to establish a new SISTER, as appears to be the case, he will, before making any announcement, consult industrial organisations such as the Federation of British Industries, and not merely accept the advice of the University Grants Committee and the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, who, frankly, represent rather a narrow range of national interests. Will the right hon. Gentleman give that undertaking.
Further, in view of the imminence of the election, does he not feel that any announcement might perhaps be deferred until after the election?

Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Gentleman's intervention comes very near to the category of "when did you stop beating your wife?" If I were to go into detail on every aspect it would look as though the Government have made up their mind. But when I said that this was under consideration, I meant it. This is not a decision which, I think, the Government can responsibly take in a hurry. The Government have to take advice from the two bodies I have mentioned, but both the degree and the timing of any announcement is a very important matter.
I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that I had not intended to be depressing tonight. I hope that I had

said enough to show the very great importance which the Government do attach to progress in higher technology.
I think that I ought to mention what I called the narrow gap between 1968 and 1974. This is relevant, and I want to say furthermore that the decisions about SISTERs had to be taken in connection with the decisions about universities as a whole. Both the Government's decision itself and the timing of any announcement will be very carefully considered indeed.

Dame Irene Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the past month the Prime Minister has been interesting himself in the proposals for higher technological education in the North-East, having regard to the fact that it is considered essential for our development on the North-East Coast? Presumably my right hon. Friend is aware that the Prime Minister is to answer a Question from me today on the subject. I am not suggesting that there will be a final answer today, but he knows of the views put forward by various bodies interested in technological education in the North-East. The Prime Minister has been seeking to do some co-ordination so that progress may be made towards an announcement as to what the future will be.

Sir E. Boyle: May I let my hon. Friend into a secret? I have glanced at the Answer which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister may be giving to her later today, but perhaps I had better not anticipate it.

FURTHER EDUCATION (DAY RELEASE)

4.17 a.m.

Mr. James Boyden: Leaving aside the prejudice which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State for Education and Science may have induced in me by his accurate and pleasing reference to my constituency, may I say how much I appreciate his diligence, patience and courtesy on these early-hour occasions. The hour seems in no way to affect those qualities which he shows on so many occasions. But I gather that the Under-Secretary is to reply to me.
It is my intention to raise the Report of the Henniker-Heaton Committee and


Government action throughout on the further education of young people and day release. Both the Crowther and the Newsom Committees have done great service to education and politics by emphasising the large numbers of young people who receive no education after leaving school, and this is at a time when all social and political problems become more complicated and those receiving higher education full time have longer and more expensive courses than ever before.
If there were two nations separated by a great social and economic gulf in Disraeli's 1864, there are two worlds today separated by a great educational chasm. On the one hand, there are those, post-graduates seeking refresher courses, those joining actively in the courses provided by extra-mural departments and the W.E.A., who are gluttons for education, and quite rightly—and who are not always encouraged as they should be by the Secretary of State for Education and Science; and on the other hand, there are those referred to in Chapter 35 of the Crowther Report, which opens in this way:
An observer of English education can hardly fail to be disturbed by the large number of able boys and girls who lose their intellectual curiosity before they have exhausted their capacity to learn. There are, of course, dull patches in every subject, but the distaste to which we refer goes much deeper than this temporary boredom. It is more akin to accidie, that deep-seated apathy which theologians class as one of the seven deadly sins.
It is at the root of a great deal of social disorder as well as being a great loss to the community, as so many of the young people have great capacities which both the Newsom and the Crowther Report have emphasised. One of our tasks is to harness the education and enthusiasm of those with considerable educational qualifications—administrators and industrialists, for example—so that they take much more interest than they take now in the education of those educationally deprived groups who are the subject of this debate. We need a missionary zeal, shown for education generally by many graduates and others, too, in adult education, in the cause of the W.E.A. which Professor Dover Wilson espoused immediately after the 1914–18 war.
The Newsom Report has brought out very well indeed that the potentialites for development exist. I was very struck by its saying that one quarter of the children it was reporting on belonged to school organisations and participated in extramural curricula, and that one-half took part in activties outside the school, and that although a great many of them engaged in paid work, this did not interfere with their work in school, or with their capacity to do these things. This indicates the toughness of our young people, a toughness which is being wasted because of the lack of day release, the lack of further education facilities, to which I shall come in a moment.
I want now to make one further reference to the Crowther Committee, which links up very well with the objectives of the Henniker-Heaton Committee and what, I am sure, will be the objectives of the Department of Education and Science. It is that we are at the point where we need to multiply and develop all sorts of unorthodox approaches and a whole variety of courses in the schools and in further education. On page 394 of that Report, the Crowther Committee says:
we feel confident that the 'yield' of the whole educational system could be much increased if there were available a wider variety of forms of education and a wider choice of sequence in learning, so that every young person could find one that was designed to develop his potentialities in the most suitable way.
We have made very little progress in this form of further education since the days of the Fisher Act and the experimental establishment of county colleges. One hardly ever hears the words "county colleges" these days, but, instead, the horrible term "day release". I object to the expressin, because it concentrates so much on the physical time of education and not anything like enough on the constructive approach by way of building up institutions and courses. Although I shall fall into the fault of using the term because it is a convention and a shorthand expression, I do so on the understanding that it is jargon which inhibits some of the developments one would like to see in the form of county colleges and further education.
We have made no steady progress in providing young people with opportunities for further education with day release


over the last few years at all. There has been some improvement in the last two years. Whether that is due to the pre-electoral boom, or whether it is an accident, I would not know. I do not want to make any party politics out of this occasion, but I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree with me, as certainly Lord Eccles was always saying, that progress in this field of further education by day release of our young people has been very disappointing indeed.
I must say that I find the Henniker-Heaton Report very disappointing, too. It is timid, and it is timid because of the limitation on the Committee by its terms of reference. The suggestions it makes for quantities are not enough, especially in view of the debate which we have just had on SISTERs. Indeed, the Minister of Stale very rightly, drew attention to the large achievements which he hopes will be accomplished as a result of the Robbins Report, and that we should do as much or more in providing further education for 15 to 18 year-olds as we are going to do for flyers.
The figures in the Henniker-Heaton Report show that the progress made has been absolutely bad. I refer to the absolute number of boys and girls between 15 and 17 who have no further education after leaving school. The numbers have absolutely gone on increasing each year from 1956–57 to 1962–63, with one exception, when there was a peak, in 1959–60. In other words, the 496,000 in 1956–57 with no further education went up to 555,000 in 1962–63. That was boys. The position for girls is quite deplorable, of course. In 1956–57, there were 592,000 aged 15 to 17 with no further education. In 1962–63, the number went up to 694,000. There were percentage improvements, but the absolute numbers of those without further education in that age group, 15 to 17, generally went on increasing, and it is higher now than before.
Of those having day release the numbers absolutely deteriorated, while again the percentage showed a trifling improvement. For the boys absolute numbers on day release decreased. In 1956–57 there were 148,000 and not until 1960–61 did the figure go up to 165,000. The percentage for girls fluctuated a little. It stayed around 4½ per cent., but there again the absolute number of girls hav-

ing any day release only went up from 36,000 in 1956–57 to 62,000 in 1962–63. The absolute numbers have improved, but the percentages remained stable and the total result is very deplorable.
This makes a sharp contrast between the poor figures for people receiving day release and the relative progress in other fields—boys and girls staying at school voluntarily, the number of sandwich courses, and, although the percentage of the age group attending university has decreased a trifle, the absolute numbers have increased. Although, in other spheres of education, there has been progress in numbers, in this field there has been no progress and sometimes there has been deterioration. If one looks at the further education day release of the 18- to 20-year-olds, the same deterioration is shown. In 1956–57, there were 690,000 without any and in 1962–63 the number had gone up to 747,000. The same applies even more to girls. There the figures are absolutely bad. In 1956–57 there were 797,000 18- to 20-year-old girls without further education and in 1962–63 the number was up to 881,000.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us some of the ways in which those industries with particularly bad records in day release for further education may be improved, what discussions the Department might have had with some of them, so that those who are very bad will show signs of repentance and improvement. One of the striking and sad things is that very often the industries which are most affluent are the worst in making provision for day release for either boys or girls, or both. For example, among the bad industries in this respect, the food, drink and tobacco industries release only 16 per cent. of the boys and 7·4 per cent. of the girls. There has been very little improvement since 1959. The bricks, pottery, glass making industries release only 12 per cent. boys and 2·5 per cent. girls.
I sometimes wonder whether the bad export record of that particular group of industries—indeed, whether the crisis in supply which we face today—may be partially due to lack of progressive interest of management in education and that these figures in a subtle way indicate the lack of progressiveness in these industries generally and certainly


in relation to care for young people. The distributive trades are quite shocking. In them only 7·6 per cent. of the boys and only 2·3 per cent. of the girls are given day release. Insurance, banking and finance are wealthy industries, but they had a very bad day release record—8·9 per cent. for boys and 1·2 per cent. for girls. They are improving, but very slightly and the whole picture is disappointing.
I have been particularly disappointed with one set of figures in the Henniker-Heaton Report. It appears that the professional and scientific services release only 30·5 per cent. of boys and 20·4 per cent. of girls. This is an occupational group which should be doing much better and I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will explain why the group's record is so bad.
Among the good industries I find that nearly all the nationalised industries—I would go so far as to say all of them—including local government and the public services, have extremely good records. I have said some harsh things about the public services but, generally speaking, they have good figures on day release, with one exception; the Treasury. I find it odd to learn that the Treasury, which is responsible for training in the Civil Service, should have about the worst statistical record of all. I appreciate that the numbers concerned are small, and that they are mainly girls, but the Treasury's record should be better. I remember the Financial Secretary to the Treasury getting into some difficulty on one occasion when he said that in the matter of day release the Treasury was "different". That remark was not at all well received by hon. Members on this side of the House, although later he wrote me a letter explaining that he had not meant what he said.
The gas, water and electricity industries are particularly good, with the percentage for boys being virtually at maximum and schemes covering about one-third of girls. Public administration has the best record for day release for girls, two-thirds, with somewhat more for boys. The mining industry has a good record, too, even though it is lumped in with quarrying, where day release statistics are poor. For that reason the total result—40 per cent. of

boys and 12 per cent. girls—is not striking in appearance, although it actually means that the National Coal Board is extremely progressive. However, the figures for mining show one fly in the ointment; that the industry is not so good in day release for girls as for boys.
Among other good industries are chemicals, engineering, electricity and metal manufacturing. I find it odd that while the metal manufacturing side is releasing half its boys and 16 per cent. of its girls, other manufacturing industries—notably textiles, clothing and leather—have particularly poor records. There appears to be no consistency between one manufacturing industry and another and, in view of the figures achieved by some industries in this group, further attention should be paid to the manufacturing industries.
I urge hon. Members to consider some of the recommendations of the Henniker-Heaton Committee, all of which, I gather the Government accept. How and when do they intend to implement them? Recommendation 2 states:
We hope that the industrial training boards will write into their recommendations a requirement for day or block release as a condition for a grant to a firm.
The Government lost a good opportunity, when we were discussing the last Industrial Training Measure, to insert a Clause which would have given compulsory powers for this ultimately to be done. Recommendation 3 refers to
… a sustained public relations campaign to achieve the required expansion.
The Under-Secretary referred the other day to the activities of his Department in relation to public relations. Perhaps tonight he will say how those activities are concerned with day release. As I have said on previous occasions, there seems to have been a decline in public relations work in local authorities compared with the Edwards and Blenkinsop Committees, when the Ministry of Health was responsible for this matter in the 1947–50 period.
Another recommendation—No. 6—is that specific approaches should be made to employers to allow day release to those boys and girls who themselves are pursuing evening courses. A further recommendation—No. 7—is very important; to encourage the development


work in the Ministry and with the L.E.A.s. This is for boys in unskilled and semi-skilled occupations. Again, we had discussion of this in the Standing Committee on the Industrial Training Bill. It seems to me that this is one of the very important points of development, and I would very much welcome an indication of what the Ministry has in mind. I would say that one needs to proceed by compulsory powers. I know that this is not possible at the moment, but I should have thought that in the fairly near future one would proceed by compulsory power in relation to day release of large blocks of unskilled and semi-skilled young people.
A further recommendation that I hope will get some notice is No. 9—that release ought not to be terminated because a certain age has been reached.
Then, in this Report—as in almost all reports nowadays—we have criticism of the statistical data of the Ministry of Education and Ministry of Labour, because Recommendation No. 12 is that there should be provided additional statistical information in order to plan day release. As I have said on several occasions, I am very worried that the development of industrial training and of day release could lead to overlapping and great confusion if there is not the most accurate statistical planning, and probably a much greater strengthening of the authority and advice of the Ministries of Education and Labour in the regions, in conjunction with the local education authorities.
So much for the main parts of the Henniker-Heaton Report. Perhaps I might now turn to another allied subject about which I have not been able to get much satisfaction from the Department. I refer now to the White Paper, "Better Opportunities in Technical Education", and, in particular, to the extremely distressing failure rate in the technical college field.
I want to refer to two articles that recently appeared in Technical Education. One was written by Mr. Hall, head of the Engineering Department of Bolton Technical College, who did an analysis of the examination results of the G2, or first qualifying level of the diagnostic general course in engineering, held in the summer of 1963. He worked out the results of the seven principal examining

unions, and in page 337 of Technical Education showed quite conclusively that only 1 in 4 students passed to the O1 year of the ordinary national course. Mr. Hall summarised his statistical observations by saying:
The so-called general course sieve is of very fine mesh
and implied that the wastage rates were as serious as they were before the introduction of the White Paper.
He also referred to another set of examinations—the Mechanical Technician examination, Part I and the Electrical Technician examination, Part I, where, although the results were better, he was still of the opinion that the wastage
… cannot be considered to be less than in the days preceding the implementation of the new pattern.
One other reference, oddly enough, to this same journal was a college I know well, in a line of country with which I am much more familiar than engineering and technical courses. It was an article by the head of the Liberal Studies Department, Stockton and Billingham Technical College. I went to the foundation-stone laying at the opening of the college—I was a member of the board of governors for some time—and I would say that, if anything, it is rather an above-average college. Certainly, the staff are keen and the students are keen and it has had a lot of money devoted to it by the Ministry and Durham County Council.
If the results which I shall give are typical of G.C.E. examinations throughout the country—I hope that they are not, but I have a feeling that they are—the work that is going on is leading to a great deal of frustration among staff and students. The table on page 341 sets out the G.C.E. O-level results for the academic year 1961–62. The writer of the article, the head of the department, says that the students are up against very real difficulties. They are asked to do in a shorter time under much more difficult conditions what the sixth form of the grammar school are asked to do.
I pick out some representative results. In English language, there were 23 on the register, seven completed the course, nine sat the examination and two passed. In English literature, there were 15 on the register, five completed the course, six took the examination and two passed. In


German, there were 23 on the register, five completed the course, one sat the examination and nobody passed. In geography, which, I always thought, was a soft option, though perhaps that is the prejudice of a historian, there were 13 on the register, four completed the course, one took the examination and nobody passed. The other results are comparable.
It seems to me that what has to be done is very much strengthening of the staffs of the technical colleges, particularly in providing ancillaries to the teaching staff. The technical colleges need more administrative staff to get into the field to make contact with employers and with the schools, both to see that the courses which they are running are appropriate for industry and also to see that recruitment is kept up among the type of boy and girl who will benefit by the courses which they are preparing. Much more staff is needed. I know that the Department is making a move in this direction with colleges of advanced technology, but it needs to be done throughout the field. Staff is needed for remedial courses, not, of course, called by that name, but one needs supplementary staff to be able to provide tutorials or "counselling" as they say in America, induction courses, and individual attention to individual needs.
Attention needs also to be paid to the teaching of mathematics at technical colleges. Just as schools are now concerned with the teaching of mathematics, rather more fundamentally than perhaps is necessary in technical colleges, so there is need for more practical teaching of mathematics and less of academic teaching at the technical colleges. Therefore there is need for many more members of staff, better trained and better able to do these detailed jobs.
Secondly, there is need for codification and simplification of examinations. The Minister of State was good enough to write to me about one query which I put to him about this, but it is the fundamental principle that needs attention, and attention is not directed sufficiently vigorously to this problem.
Thirdly, though what we want is limited by resources, the more physical resources need to be made more avail-

able in terms of libraries, recreational facilities, opportunities for drama, and music, the provision of refectories and residential accommodation. All these need to be seen to so that the actual physical plan of the colleges reaches the level of the best schools and of the universities. I see that the Ministry was able to accept only in a limited way the recommendations of the Libraries Association on library facilities for technical colleges. The number of teacher-training places needs to be increased. There are not enough technical teacher training colleges and there are not enough teachers. The Henniker-Heaton recommendations will require more teachers but already in the colleges there are too many part-time teachers without training and, indeed, full-time teachers without training.
I should like to add this final caveat. Just as the figures for the further education opportunities for girls are most distressing, so we need to have a drive to improve the facilities for girls and to improve their recruitment. There ought to be in every technical college a woman with a staff devoted purely to the welfare and educational interests of girls, to recruit girls and provide them with the sort of attention which is very often missing in technical colleges generally. There ought to be this special attention devoted to the education and welfare interests of girls.
I have covered rather a large field very rapidly, but I hope that there will emerge, as there sometimes does in these duologues between the Under-Secretary and myself, some improvement in the future.

4.46 a.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary for Education and Science (Mr. Christopher Chataway): I find it in me to congratulate the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden), even at this time of the morning, for raising this subject, the more so because he narrowly missed the opportunity of initiating a debate on technical education earlier this month. I thought that I noticed some contrast in tone between his remarks this evening and the Motion that he put on the Order Paper, a Motion which was so universally gloomy about further education as to make one wonder whether it was intended to be taken seriously.
The hon. Gentleman knows that we share his concern to see the numbers getting the benefit of day release and block release rapidly increased. But I believe that he is taking far too pessimistic a view of developments over these recent years when he extends these criticisms to further education as a whole and when he says, as I believe he did at one point, that very little has happened in the development of further education.

Mr. Boyden: If I did say that, I withdraw it. I was referring to the Henniker-Heaton category. I did not wish my remarks to apply to the whole of further education.

Mr. Chataway: No. I think that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that something of a revolution has been carried through in further education, particularly since the publication of the 1957 White Paper.
I think that in considering the way in which we can now allocate our resources, it is necessary to look at the way in which expenditure has been moving in the field of further education. Whereas, in 1955–56—and this is the year before the White Paper—local education authorities had a current expenditure on further education of nearly £29 million, the figure in 1962–63 is over £80 million, and in that same period capital expenditure on further education has risen from £8,487,000 to £26,018,000.
These are obviously very substantial increases in expenditure and they have, naturally, resulted in a considerable increase in the population at the technical colleges. The number of full-time students in grant-aided institutions has increased from 56·5 thousand in 1955–56 to 140·7 thousand in 1962–63, and there have been large increases also in the numbers of sandwich students and part-time day students over these years.
I take, first, the failure rate in technical examinations. I, too, have some statistics of failure rates in the national certificates and diplomas, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that some of the figures are disturbing. There is a great variety in the pattern which presents itself, but there can be no doubt that some failure rates on some courses are a cause for concern.
I make three points in this connection. First, I am sure that improved selection of students for courses has a

great part to play in reducing failure rates. Second, we need to have a steady and continuing improvement in the opportunities which exist for changing from one course to another when the original course, for one reason or another, proves to be unsuitable to the particular student. Third, I think that we can look forward reasonably to an improvement here as a result of the Industrial Training Act, the implementation of which is likely to have a beneficial effect because industrial training and further education will, as a result of the recommendations of the industrial training boards, be more closely associated in the future than they have often been hitherto.
I think that the stories one hears of firms telling their young workers to go along to the college to take such-and-such a course, for which the young people may be quite unsuited, should become considerably rarer as a result of the implementation of the Act.
It would, of course, be wrong to hold out a low failure rate as the over-riding priority at any stage of education. I know that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is no more desirable at a further education college than it is at a school that the staff should be concerned principally to see that somewhere near 100 per cent. of their students get through any one course. If 100 per cent. do get through, this suggests that selection has not been good, because some who would have got through the course have probably been excluded in the selection process.
My right hon. Friend is concerned to see that these failure rates are more closely examined. At the moment, I cannot say that we have the means of assessing the true meaning of the failure figures which are available to us. For example, we cannot tell from these figures how many students pass at their second attempt. Taking an examination once as a trial run and then passing on the second occasion is a very different state of affairs from one in which students fail and drop out altogether. We do not have overall figures for the numbers of students who are dropping out before ever taking the examination. We are, therefore, considering the institution of a system so that we may know what the wastage process is from the


start of certain courses to the finish and so that we may follow the flow of students through a large number of further education courses.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of questions on the Henniker-Heaton Committee. As he rightly said, the Government have accepted the Committee's recommendation of an overall target of 250,000 additional young people under 18 in further education courses by 1970. The hon. Gentleman suggested that this was not an ambitious enough target. It is true that a number of individuals and bodies in the education world have said that they would like to see an even more rapid expansion than this, but it will be remembered that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Education and Science, when he was first appointed Minister of Education, called a representative conference in which there was a fair identity of view that if we were to attempt to move to anything nearer compulsory day release for all, this could be done only at the expense of other more urgent educational projects, and if we are to have an even greater expansion of day release than that proposed by Henniker-Heaton, this will mean that resources, both in the shape of buildings and teachers, will have to be diverted from other educational projects.
My right hon. and learned Friend is not prepared to envisage this. We believe, however, with the Henniker-Heaton Committee, that it should be possible to reach this figure of 250,000 additional day release places without any general compulsion. I see that the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) said only the other day that a Labour Government would give a statutory right to day release to all apprentices, and later to all young workers. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland also argued this evening that there ought to be some statutory right to day release for certain categories of workers.
We believe that the approach of the Henniker-Heaton Committee is more desirable. In effect what the Committee is saying is that, first, priority should be given to young people who are being trained in occupations requiring knowledge and skills with which courses of

further education are associated; secondly, that in respect of boys and girls who have shown themselves clearly anxious to take advantage of further education facilities by pursuing evening only vocational classes, a specific attempt ought to be made to give them day release opportunities; and, thirdly, that attention should be paid to providing day release opportunities for boys and girls who wish to pursue non-vocational courses and who in their work receive little educational training.
We would prefer to see that order of priorities rather than, as I believe, the more haphazard concentration on certain sections of society such as apprentices. One of the difficulties about giving compulsory day release to apprentices is the difficulty of definition. Many apprentices are not indentured. They would be hard to define as a class. But more important is the fact that a situation might result in which some young people would be compelled to attend further education courses against their will, and from which they might not derive so much benefit, while less priority was given to the needs of those who were keen on furthering their education and have the backing of their employers to do so. I hope, therefore, that we shall move forward along the lines recommended by Henniker-Heaton towards the additional 250,000 by 1970.
The hon. Member rightly stressed the importance of increasing the numbers of girls receiving day release. I believe that it is not so much a question of the opportunities which are offered to girls as a reluctance on the part of the girls themselves to take advantage of day release and a reluctance on the part of employers to release young women.

Mr. Boyden: This is the argument that one cannot get shorthand typists on day release. But the figures for voluntary attendance by girls at technical colleges show that there are many girls, much more than one would think from the hon. Member's argument, who want education of this sort.

Mr. Chataway: I think that the hon. Member would have difficulty in arguing that it is a shortage of facilities and of courses which in the majority of cases can be held to explain the low figures of day release for girls. A greater cause,


I am sure, is reluctance on the part of many girls and, perhaps even more, a reluctance on the part of employers to release girls even when they are prepared to release boys.
Since receiving the Henniker-Heaton Report, my right hon. and learned Friend has received the comments of the National Advisory Council on Education for Industry and Commerce. It has warmly welcomed the Report and has noted with satisfaction that we have accepted the major recommendations. We have heard from most of the national representative bodies covering the local education authorities, industry and the technical teachers which we have consulted. They, too, have welcomed the Report and are in general agreement with it, though some would have liked to go further in the direction of part-time day release for everybody under 18, with some form of limited compulsion. The broad picture is of a general welcome for the Report from all these bodies.
My right hon. and learned Friend intends, therefore, to issue a circular to local education authorities in the autumn after the normal consultations with local authority associations. The major point to be considered at this stage is how best we can translate this national figure of 250,000 into local targets. It must be apparent that dividing the 250,000 between all the local education authorities would be an arbitrary and unsatisfactory way of proceeding. Some local education authorities have considerable industries in their areas and a high rate of day release, and they are unlikely to have the same opportunities for expansion as others. Our present thought, therefore, is that local education authorities should set targets in consultation with the regional advisory councils and that the 250,000 should be split among the 10 advisory councils—including the Welsh Joint Education Committee. These matters are being considered, and the next major step in the implementation of the Henniker-Heaton Report will be the circular which my right hon. and learned Friend hopes to issue in the autumn, after the consultations with the local authority associations to which I have referred.
I hope that I have been able to answer a fair number of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman and that he will gather from my remarks that my right hon. and

learned Friend is anxious to take all steps as quickly as he can to see that the Henniker-Heaton recommendations are carried through in the years to 1970.

ARTS COUNCIL

5.5 a.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I am glad to have the opportunity to put on record my admiration for Miss Joan Cross and Miss Anne Wood and their courage in resigning from the London Opera Centre, followed, of course, by dismissal, because they felt that they were not able to protect the interests of the students for whom they were partially responsible. In a materialistic world, when so many people are concerned with furthering their own ambitions, sometimes—though not always—at other people's expense, it is very gratifying to find that these two women preferred to cut short their careers, to isolate themselves from the very arrogant establishment which surrounds the Arts Council, in order to draw attention to the fact that the students who were recruited to the Centre were not being fairly treated.
I will not go into the dispute, because the whole story, I am glad to say, has been very adequately covered by an admirable article in the Queen, on 15th July, by Mr. Julian Holland. I hope that those who are interested in the work of the Arts Council and the bodies associated with it which receive grants from it, and who read my words in the OFFICIAL REPORT, will get that article so that the whole story may be read. I should like to thank Mr. Holland for the trouble that he took. In this world of sensation, it is gratifying to find that a publication of the standard of the Queen should offer so much space to a writer even of the qualifications and standards of Mr. Holland to give the whole story and all the facts.
There the facts are. As there has already been an Adjournment debate on the subject, my purpose tonight is not to go into the detail of the controversy, but to add some remarks about the Arts Council and to address the representative of the Treasury, the Economic Secretary, on the extraordinary attitude of the Treasury to those who need protection. I say at once that had this concerned people covered by the trade


unions, had it been—as we shall face today—a debate on the Ferranti affair, there would have been a great deal more interest on the part of the Treasury.
Certainly, it has never been the practice of this Government, or, indeed, of any other Government, to approve of inquiries into matters of this kind which are not independent. I say at once that I have the greatest confidence in and admiration for Lord Robbins. I have no adverse criticism of the fact that he was asked by the Arts Council, or the Opera Centre, or the board of governors, or whoever it was who set up the inquiry, to be chairman of the committee. But this is not an independent inquiry and once again the Treasury has shown great lack of courage in trying to get all of us—and a great many people are involved—out of some of the difficulties in which the Arts Council, from time to time lands us.
I noticed with amusement that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary made what I am sure he thought was a kindly compliment to me when this subject was raised on the Adjournment in June by the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt). My hon. Friend said he regretted that I was not able to be present, but that there was some consolation in the fact that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) was present.
I presume that the House had been led to believe that there was at least one hon. Member present who was particularly interested in this question, but, while I have nothing but the greatest friendship for the hon. Member for Gloucester, he has, when it comes to the arts, always been absolutely opposed to everything that I stand for. Indeed, he played an extraordinary part when the Arts Council and those associated with it decided to put the Carl Rosa out of operation. Thus, I did not take it very kindly when the Economic Secretary thought that the hon. Member for Gloucester was a good substitute for me; but that is by the way.
I have said what I want to say about this inquiry. It is not independent. All the people concerned have played some part in the controversies which have raged round the Arts Council for a long time and it indicates, once again, what

has been shown before when questions about the Arts Council have been raised—the closed shop it operates, the arrogance with which it operates, the unfairness with which it very often hands out patronage. It is very unfortunate that successive Chancellors of the Exchequer and Financial and Economic Secretaries have not had the courage to hold a proper independent inquiry into the operation of the Arts Council.
My main reason for raising this subject tonight is to draw attention to the fact that on two occasions the Arts Council has briefed its spokesman inaccurately. It is a very difficult thing in this House to be able to prove allegations of this kind. It is not always easy for people to make the kind of observation that I intend to make but I feel so strongly about this matter that I want to put certain facts on the record.
Before dealing with a letter from Lord Cottesloe, who made a speech in another place as chairman of the Arts Council, and before referring to Lord Dundee, who, on another occasion, when briefed by the Arts Council on the Carl Rosa, knew so little about the subject that he did not even know that he had been wrongly briefed, I want to make one or two comments on the other personalities involved.
I was, of course, sorry to hear that the Director of the London Opera Centre until the present controversy, Professor Procter-Gregg, had had to resign because of ill-health. I have known him for a long time and I am sure that he is honourable and charming, but he was no more suitable to be in charge of the running of an opera centre than when he was wished on the Carl Rosa Trust as our producer.
No doubt my hon. Friend will say that the Government are satisfied with the Arts Council, but public money ought not to be wasted on and students ought not to be encouraged to go to an opera centre whose director is not academically suitable. While we in the Carl Rosa Trust were fighting our battle for survival, the Music Panel of the Arts Council wished Professor Procter-Gregg on us as our producer. The chairman of that panel has been in charge of it for far too long. That makes connivance and irregularities so easy—and


by "irregularities" I mean in the matter of the "old boy network."
Professor Procter-Gregg was one of the people who persuaded the Arts Council to withdraw the grant from the Carl Rosa Trust, which resulted in that distinguished and very old opera company going out of practice. There was a quid pro quo, of course, and it was that Professor Procter-Gregg should be provided with what the Arts Council considered to be a suitable job. I was not surprised when in due course he arrived at the London Opera Centre.
I know nothing about his successor, Mr. James Robertson who comes from New Zealand. He may be a most admirable man to be in charge of the centre, but it is not the practice in the Civil Service to appoint people to posts without advertising those posts and ensuring that the public knows the qualifications of the successful applicant. I will tell my hon Friend—I will send him a letter if he is interested—that, although he had no right to do so, Professor Procter-Gregg wrote to Mr. Robertson suggesting that it would be a good idea if he came to this country, indicating that Mr. Robertson might follow him as director of the Carl Rosa Trust, but completely ignoring the people responsible for the control, running and administration of the Carl Rosa Trust at that time. Professor Procter-Gregg should not have done that, of course. He was a servant of the Carl Rosa Trust and paid out of subsidies which came from the Treasury.
Of course, I was extremely interested when I saw that, following Professor Procter-Gregg's resignation, Mr. Robertson was appointed as director of the London Opera Centre. Professor Procter-Gregg was able to carry out the undertaking he gave to Mr. Robertson. That is not my idea of the way people ought to be appointed where public money is concerned, where the Government are concerned, and where a Government-sponsored body—the Arts Council—is concerned.
The whole method of dictating affairs by the Arts Council is not a method which commends itself to me, nor indeed to a great many other people I may say. But there it is—that is what has happened, and I am not the least surprised that in this whole set-up of

the London Opera Centre, Miss Joan Cross and Miss Anne Wood found themselves in such great difficulty. Knowing, as we all do, that they are women of great experience and great integrity, it is no surprise that they found themselves in a situation which they have not felt able to sustain.
I want to turn to the question of Lord Cottesloe. He spoke in another place, and I went to listen to the debate. I chuckled when I heard him refer to the hon. Member for Willesden, West and myself. Lord Cottesloe took great exception to the observations which the hon. Member and I had made in this Chamber, as he had every right to do, and it amused me very much.
I heard what Lord Cottesloe had to say, and now I have a word to say about Lord Cottesloe. I know that he has a much respected character, and that he does a very great deal of public work, to which we would all wish to pay tribute, but, of course, when he is up against it, being a man of great experience he knows exactly how to handle the weak Ministers at the Treasury. When Lord Cottesloe was first appointed chairman of the Arts Council the secretary-general at that time was Sir William Emrys Williams, whose appointment at that time, I am glad to say, was coming to an end. At the time Carl Rosa was coming to an end, Sir William Emrys Williams played an unfortunate and unfair part in the closing of the Carl Rosa Trust.
I would have thought that the Treasury, as guardian of the public purse, would have made it plain to the chairman of the Arts Council that senior appointments such as the secretary-general's were a matter for discussion with the Government. But Lord Cottesloe had such an admiration for Sir William Emrys Williams that on his arrival as chairman of the Arts Council he presumably found his appointment was drawing to its conclusion—he had already had an extension of his appointment—and Lord Cottesloe immediately asked him to stay on without consulting the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the time.
The Chancellor raised the matter with Lord Cottesloe, because, of course, the Chancellor knew very well that there were some people who were very


anxious to have a change of secretary-general. But not at all. Lord Cottesloe said that he had asked Sir William Emrys Williams to stay on, but that if the Chancellor insisted upon the terms of the appointment—that is, if Sir William Emrys Williams' appointment was not extended—he, Lord Cottesloe, would resign. Nobody in the Treasury minds about that. The only thing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was anxious to avoid was a public row.
I sympathise with him. I do not think that it is fair to give preferential treatment to the chairman of the Arts Council and to connive at or allow the setting up of an inquiry which is not independent into the difficulties which have arisen with Miss Joan Cross and Miss Anne Wood, who had no private or personal axe to grind. Rather the reverse is the truth, because they have seriously compromised their future. Not so Lord Cottesloe. Naturally, the Chancellor of the Exchequer immediately bowed to the will of Lord Cottesloe and, therefore, he won.
I should like to say one other thing about the inquiry. Sir David Webster is also adept at getting his own way. It might be argued with fairness that one will not get anywhere in public life unless one can manoeuvre when it is found convenient to do so. My mind goes back a long time, however. That, I suppose, is one of the advantages—or, perhaps, my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary may say, the disadvantages—of being in the House of Commons a long time.
Sir David Webster had a deputy-director at Covent Garden who was well known in the musical world, Sir Steuart Wilson. Sir Steuart gave me permission to use the report that he sent me in any way I liked. I am not, therefore, taking advantage by using his name or acting without having been given permission to do so. Sir Steuart produced a critical report of Sir David Webster and the administration and other matters relating to the conduct of Covent Garden, which has never really been entirely satisfactorily conducted.
However, Sir Steuart Wilson could not get his report considered by the board of governors of Covent Garden. I discussed it with the then chairman of

Covent Garden, Lord Waverley. Sir Steuart Wilson's report, however, was never discussed, because, no doubt, Sir David Webster would suggest to the board of governors, as has been suggested in the case of Miss Joan Cross and Miss Anne Wood, that there was no need to do so and that it was a question of temperament or something of that kind.
I well remember, during the time I was interesting myself in Arts Council affairs, being told that Madame Rambert could not be given a grant. Everybody knows the magnificent work that the Ballet Rambert has done. The Arts Council at that time would not give her a grant because she was considered to have a violent temper. Anybody would have a violent temper in dealing with the Arts Council and dealing with the Treasury when people are in this weak position in which they find themselves in relation to the administration of the arts.
At least, Sir Steuart Wilson could not get his report considered. And so, like Miss Joan Cross and Miss Anne Wood, and being without any means of fighting the case, Sir Steuart Wilson resigned. He was fortunate, because he became director of the Birmingham School of Music and did an admirable and distinguished job there. The fact remains, however, that this business of people resigning and producing reports which they want considered occurs far too often. The whole of the Arts Council is a closed shop. I have watched the patronage, the honours, the grants, I have watched how the whole thing is manipulated. Treasury Ministers never have the guts to get down to an inquiry into the administration of the arts. I know that very well, because it always has been refused.
I have already referred to the fact that when the Carl Rosa Opera Company was discussed in another place Lord Dundee was incorrectly briefed. On that occasion, I intervened in the House of Lords, which caused some consternation, but what Lord Dundee said was incorrect, untrue and a lot of nonsense. I am glad to put it on record in the House of Commons. The next thing is that Lord Cottesloe made a speech in another place and he was incorrectly briefed.
I will bore the House tonight—I very much regret it, but I am taking my opportunity now that I have it—by reading a letter which Miss Joan Cross and Miss Anne Wood sent to Lord Cottesloe. There is nothing hole and corner about the way Miss Cross and Miss Wood operate. They operate right out in the open. They have got the courage of their convictions, and they hit when they ought to hit—but that does not have any effect either on the Chairman of the Arts Council or on the Treasury.
I should like this letter to be on the record. It was written on 19th June, after Lord Cottesloe's speech in another place:
Dear Lord Cottesloe,
In your recent speech in the House of Lords you referred to our resignations from the London Opera Centre in terms that lead us to believe that you have been misinformed. You said that 'the reasons given in the Press for the decisions were not communicated to the Governors and the Administrator before they sent in their resignations'. This is not correct. The fact is that all the reasons for our decision to resign have been under constant discussion for the past three years, with the former Chairman, the present Chairman, and the Director. The fact that these dissatisfactions have never apparently reached the Board comes as a complete surprise to us.
Shortly after the Centre was opened in September, 1963, and at the invitation of the Chairman of the Board, a routine of weekly meetings was established between the Chairman and ourselves, at which all current matters concerning the Centre were reviewed. The problems of the building, heating, ventilation, etc., were discussed, and, in particular, the dilemma presented by the Centre's lack of a stage. We all found ourselves urging the need for the students to give public performances, but, at the same time, we personally were adamant that the lack of a raised stage (lost in the levelling of the floor to provide Covent Garden with rehearsal space), the poor acoustics and the unsuitably large size of the auditorium made performances before the public positively disadvantageous to students, whose future careers often depend on such performances. We naturally assumed that the gist of these discussions was placed before the Governors and the Administrator, particularly as many of our views appeared to be shared by the Chairman and Director.
Following a private and experimental performance by the students in the auditorium, there was a meeting of the staff of the Centre on 15th December, 1963, at which the auditorium was unanimously condemned as unsuitable for student performances. As a result, a report was prepared by the Director, in collaboration with us, for the Administrator and Board. In addition, one member of the staff, a producer, unable to attend the meet-

ing, sent a separate report direct to the Administrator. We naturally assumed that these important reports reached the Administrator and Board.
During the years of the planning and establishment of the institution, we were never invited to consult with, or offer the benefits of our fifteen years' experience to, the Board or the Administration. This seemed strange as we were the only people who had specialised in this field of operatic training for young singers, producers and repetiteurs; we are sure, however, that there are many others who could have given valuable advice at the planning stage. We ourselves sought an interview with the Administrator in June 1963 during which we told him many of the problems. But it was made clear to us in many ways that our channel of communication was through the Director and Chairman It was finally apparent to us that even this channel was blocked.
On or about March 23, 1964, Miss Cross wrote to the Chairman expressing her concern as to whether her time and energies and those of others at the Centre together with a great deal of public money, were not being misused. This letter made it clear that we were deeply worried about the policies and administration of the Centre. We understand that it was not read to the Board. Miss Cross, not unnaturally, expected that the Board and/or Administrator would wish to discuss the matter with her, but, in fact, she received no answer of any kind. As it became increasingly clear that neither the Administration nor the Board were disposed even to listen to us, we were compelled to take the final step—at considerable personal loss. Our letters of resignation were sent to the Administrator on April 6th and 7th, with the request that they should be placed before the Board of Governors. The Administrator did ask to see Miss Wood, April 20th, but only discussed with her those points, such as length of notice, etc., which arose out of the fact that she had never received a letter of appointment. Our resignations were accepted by the Administrator by April 20th, and again we were surprised that he should accept them without any personal discussion and without reference to the Board.
I think that all this administration is most unbusinesslike and incompetent. Everyone, I think, knows that Sir David Webster, having obtained what he thought was a rehearsal stage for which Covent Garden had been agitating for a very long time, could not care less what happened to anyone else. The letter goes on:
At the opening of the summer term on April 21st, neither the Staff nor the students were officially informed of our resignations, and it seemed clear that the matter was to be suppressed.
I can well imagine that
We could not accept this further discourtesy. We informed the Administrator that we intended to let the Press know that we had resigned, using the form of wording previously


agreed with him. After issuing the information we refused to speak to the Press, but it soon became clear that our resignations were in danger of being mis-represented, not only by the Press, as merely a 'clash of personalities'. Since this was untrue and since we had apparently failed to make any impact on the Board and Administration, we had no alternative but to issue a Press statement covering the main points of our disagreements with the Centre's policies, and drawing attention to the facts as we know them, including what we considered to be the misuse of public money.
There were many further opinions expressed in your speech on such matters as the Bridges Committee, the Prospectus, the essential facilities at the Centre etc., which also lead us to the view that you were partially or wrongly informed. We are, therefore, sending copies of this letter to those other Peers who spoke in the debate in the Upper House; and to the Members of the House of Commons who sponsored the all-party motion debated in the House on 12th June and those who put and answered questions on previous occasions.
I think that that is a very clear letter. I ask my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary whether he has had a reply from Lord Cottesloe. If he has not, now that I have read this letter, I shall be interested to know whether he will ask Lord Cottesloe if he will reply to the letter to my hon. Friend and if, in due course, my hon. Friend will let me know the answer to the letter Lord Cottesloe has received.
I finish with one other point which, I think, is important. Of course, I know about the "clash of personalities". That is always what weak men use. I consider that this is exactly the case of Madame Rambert and the Carl Rosa Opera Company. Always in a weak situation weak men or women always talk about a clash of personalities. Miss Cross and Miss Wood have, at any rate to my satisfaction, shown that they have got the greatest courage by taking their careers in their hands and resigning; as I say, much to their detriment.
The trouble is that the next thing that happens is that in one of the Sunday newspapers at that time the new secretary-general comes out with a threat. It is to the effect that if anyone does not pull himself or herself together, if people do not pull their weight, the Centre might be closed. That would indeed be a waste of public money. If the Economic Secretary has read the article in the Queen, I am sure that he has some indication of

the waste of public money that there has been already.
I object to this action on the part of the secretary-general, however distinguished he may be and whoever he is. It is for the chairman of such an organisation to announce policy, and not the secretary or director-general. One might just as well say that the particular Minister in the Treasury who has the Arts Council baton under his control should answer me, but that is not so because it is the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to appoint the appropriate Treasury Minister to answer my criticisms.
I know exactly what happened before in the case of Sir Kenneth Clark, when he was chairman of the Arts Council. Being an extremely distinguished man with very wide interests—and at the time he was also chairman of Independent Television—he was so much away from his position as chairman of the Arts Council that the whole matter came into the hands of the official; and there was formed a panel with a chairman and a very clever and able secretary-general who controlled everything he possibly could. He pulled so many wires that in the end he obliterated the Carl Rosa Opera Company.
The Treasury still plays a part in the Arts Council and I know that it does not want to be forced into the position of taking any action. Nevertheless, we are talking about public money, and those who spend it and agree to it being spent—hon. Members in the House of Commons—have a right to demand that fairness and justice is done. I hope, therefore, that in future, policy statements will be made by the chairman of the Arts Council and not by the secretary-general.
It was unfortunate that this threat was immediately issued, for it meant that in this free world and free Parliament, it two people of great distinction and integrity dare to disagree with the powers that be, they have got to be theatened. That is not a situation I could tolerate. I am thoroughly disturbed at the Arts Council, its conduct, the fact that it is a closed shop, that patronage is often most unsuitably given, that no one has the right to disagree with it, and that, if one falls out with it, it is like falling out with the B.B.C. or something like that so that one's career may be ruined. I do not


think that in a free country, with a free Parliament, we can tolerate that sort of thing in future.
I have said all that I wanted to say. I have talked for a long time, but I feel very strongly on this subject, and I am delighted to have the opportunity of backing up the action of Miss Cross and Miss Wood, because I know that they both acted from honourable motives.

5.45 a.m.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) not only for the conventional notice she gave of her intention to raise this question on this occasion, but also for the warning—not to say minatory—letters she sent me reinforcing her Motion on the Notice Paper.
When I replied to the Adjournment debate earlier in this Parliament, I was certainly not suggesting, in welcoming the presence of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond), that he might be a substitute for the hon. Lady—that, indeed, would be an impossible achievement for anybody in this House. I was merely suggesting that in her absence it was perhaps a good thing in that debate to have as well as the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), one more hon. Gentleman who, like my hon. Friend, is interested and knowledgeable and takes a personally disinterested view of these matters.
I have a great admiration for the work that is being done by Miss Cross and Miss Wood, and a great admiration for the spirited way in which they and the hon. Lady, aided by the Queen magazine, have put their case before the public, but I will not accept that their resignation was necessary to protect the students at the London Opera Centre. Nor, for one moment, do I accept the allegations set out in the article in the Queen, which presents with great forensic skill one side only of the case.
I would not accept my hon. Friend's statement that it gives the whole of the facts. Indeed, one of the unfortunate sides to the controversy is the way in which it has been conducted publicly and semi-publicly, with counter-attack and personal counter-attack. My hon. Friend

has not allowed the lateness of the hour to lessen the zeal of her attack, and I shall do my best to answer her, but, I hope, without indulging in any personal counter-attack, however tempted I might be to do so.
In some ways I am sorry that my hon. Friend has raised the matter now, because there is not very much that I can add to what has already been said, partly because not very much new has come out since this question was debated before, except, I think, that the reasons for my hon. Friend's disapproval of so many of the personalities concerned have been shown rather more clear to go back to a fundamental difference of opinion about the Carl Rosa Opera Company as well as the London Opera Centre. I think that it has been shown that the roots of the controversy go rather deeper into history than came out in our first debate.
As to the Arts Council in general, I would repeat what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on Tuesday last in answer to a Question. He said:
We have confidence in its conduct of its affairs …
Referring to this sort of dispute in particular, my right hon. Friend said:
… this is the sort of matter which we must leave to the Arts Council."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th July, 1964; Vol. 699, c. 1224.]
My hon. Friend said "Not at all" in an interjection, and has repeated that at some considerably greater length this morning. She is at variance with my right hon. Friend and myself and a number of other people concerned on three main points—first, on the Arts Council in all aspects of its work, secondly, on the conduct of opera in this country in general, and, thirdly, on this controversy over the London Opera Centre in particular.
On the Opera Centre, there is no question of this inquiry, which is being made, having been set up by the Treasury or the Government or even the Arts Council. This was an internal inquiry set up by the governors of the Opera Centre to deal with matters which had arisen. There is, therefore, no question of its being an independent inquiry in that sense of the word, although I hope that my hon. Friend is not casting any doubts on the probity or integrity of all


those who make up the committee of inquiry.
As I have said, this was not a question of an imposed inquiry but one concerning internal administration. There is no question of the inquiry not being genuine. The mere fact that it is being conducted under the auspices of the governors and by those concerned is an indication of that, because their purpose is to make the Opera Centre work in the future, it is necessary that they should examine all the charges made and the disagreements which have arisen to make sure that in the future the organisation functions efficiently. They have, therefore, no interest in doing other than examining it to discover faults.
If I may give my hon. Friend an analogy, the pilot who does a cockpit check before taking off, or the driver who examines his car before going a long journey, is not disinterested or independent in the sense in which my hon. Friend uses that word, but he is greatly concerned to see that the apparatus works, and so is this committee of inquiry.

Dame Irene Ward: I quite agree about the analogy, but if there is a crash there is an independent inquiry into the crash.

Mr. Macmillan: I would not accept that there has been a crash. The London Opera Centre is continuing to operate, and much as one must regret the resignations of Miss Cross and Miss Wood I would say that not even ladies of their eminence are entirely and absolutely indispensable.
Perhaps the committee of inquiry is all the more concerned because the London Opera Centre was created at the demand of the opera companies to supply their needs. Indeed, they depend on it. Perhaps for the committee of inquiry and for the governors of the London Opera Centre a word more relevant that "independent" is "autonomous", and certainly the governors are autonomous. This is a school supplying opera and in that case must be as interdependent with the opera companies as a grammar school with the university to which its pupils are going. In fact more so, because in the case of the Opera Centre, although its sole purpose is to provide teaching facilities, these are primarily to produce performers for the opera com-

panies rather than to give academic instruction.
This is made clear in the prospectus, from which I should like to quote to make this point, on which my hon. Friend touched, absolutely clear. It says that the Centre
intends to provide training for young opera singers, producers, directors and musical coaches …
Then follows a reference to the constitution of the Centre as a company limited by guarantee, and so on, and it goes on:
The governors of the London Opera Centre have appreciated the need for a close association with an opera house continuously engaged in the production of opera. They have, with the concurrence of the Directors of the Royal Opera House made an arrangement for a link with Covent Garden which has been implemented by three steps, first the appointment of Sir David Webster as General Administrator of the Centre, secondly, by an understanding with Covent Garden under which the physical and administrative resources of the Opera House are made available to the Centre, and, thirdly, by an agreement for the joint occupation of a special building, which on Covent Garden's side will be used for rehearsal purposes.
It is, therefore, incorrect to imply, as has been implied in previous debate and in newspaper articles, that these conditions—the appointment of Sir David Webster as general administrator, the understanding with Covent Garden under which the physical and administrative resources of the Opera House are made available to the Centre, and the agreement for joint occupation—were imposed at a later stage on a school to its detriment and to the detriment of the students.
I think that it would be silly for the opera companies to sacrifice the students to their own immediate needs. All that they would be doing would be to sacrifice their future to their current needs. I would agree that there have been difficulties and problems of a practical and personal nature, but these are what the committee of inquiry has been set up to deal with. There is no doubt that from the very beginning the students were intended for the opera companies and that the link was the real point on which the Bridges Committee insisted when it set up this organisation. My hon. Friend may say that this was not so. She may say that it was purely for practical training or training which was not connected with the centres at Covent


Garden, Glyndebourne and Sadlers Wells, but those, in fact, were the original terms of reference under which the Committee was set up.
My hon. Friend went into various details. She took exception to various individuals—Professor Procter-Gregg, Professor Anthony Lewis, Lord Cottesloe, Sir William Emrys Williams, and so on. So far as I could see, the chief reason she had for making these personal attacks was that these people had been concerned in some improper way with the winding up of the Carl Rosa Opera Company and that this was closely, intimately and improperly connected with the setting up of the London Opera School and the withdrawal of the grant from the National School of Opera. I reject these allegations entirely.
I hope my hon. Friend will not expect me to deal in detail with the letter that she read out. It is not a matter for me; and in reply to the two questions that she asked, I must say "No" to both, because the details which Miss Cross and Miss Wood had made public they have had an opportunity of putting before the committee of inquiry, as, indeed, has every single person who has had anything to volunteer. It would not be right, in the circumstances of the inquiry, to comment on the resignations, particularly as this is not, as has been said before, a matter for Treasury Ministers, but for the Arts Council. I shall come later on to the more general aspects of my hon. Friend's remarks on this subject.
Since the committee is going into the past, and since all concerned have had or will have the opportunity to put their point of view fully and frankly, all I would like to add in this specialised matter of the London Opera Centre is that I hope that the committee will be given a chance to inquire and to report, and that we may then see what happens.
Part of the trouble is that my hon. Friend does not really like the way opera is run in this country, and especially she does not like Covent Garden. She feels that there has been, so to speak, a take-over of other concerns and that the big, the great and the established have swallowed up the small. But this charge begs the whole question, because what she is really saying is that she does not like the implications of trying to estab-

lish in London a national opera company reaching an international standard.

Dame Irene Ward: No, I never—

Mr. Macmillan: My hon. Friend made a large number of attacks on a large number of people, and I really must get on.

Dame Irene Ward: I never said any such thing. I have done a great deal more for the arts than my hon. Friend has. I am not going to have these allegations. Stop making them.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): Order.

Mr Macmillan: I was not making a personal attack on my hon. Friend.

Dame Irene Ward: Yes, you were.

Mr Macmillan: I was merely saying that the implications of many of the things which my hon. Friend dislikes stem from the attempt successfully to establish in London a metropolitan opera company of international standard. I am not for a moment saying that my hon. Friend does not want to do this, but I am pointing out that some of the things to which she takes exception are, in my view, part of the result of doing it.
In a Question to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, my hon. Friend referred to the development of taste and to changes in all the arts in the modern world. This, to my mind at least, implies that we must accept the advantages of centralisation and concentration. We may sometimes feel that it leads to an autocratic running from the centre, but everyone who wants to try to establish a really fine opera company competing with international companies in this extremely tough professional world must accept that it requires a strong man with strong views. One must accept also that, in this country, the demand for opera is not wide or elastic, but there is room only for the best, and a comparatively limited demand for anything except the most popular part of the repertoire.
I do not want to go into the past history of the Carl Rosa Company. What has happened has stemmed from the need, which I have been describing, for a strong central opera company of the highest standard. We cannot compete if we disperse our effort, reverting, perhaps, to the smaller efforts more


widely spread in the Provinces which, in the past, most people felt were not as successful as all that.
The administration of opera and the arts can, in a sense, never be satisfactory because so much is a matter of taste, and it is not, despite what has been said tonight, for the Government or even for Parliament to try to control the artistic policies of Covent Garden or any other institution. It is not necessarily true that practices which are suitable for administrative methods in the Civil Service are equally suitable for the Arts Council. It was established because it was felt that Parliamentary governmental control and Civil Service methods in matters of the arts was not possible.
My hon. Friend doubtless feels that the money is being spent by Covent Garden in the wrong way. If it is a question of waste and malpractice, or of throwing away public money, it is a matter for the Treasury. But if it is a matter of a dispute as to whether it is the right way to spend it, according to personal artistic views, it is a matter not for the Treasury, but for the Arts Council, because these clashes are inevitable, and perhaps more so in national institutions than in others, where there is always a conflict between the avant garde and the conventional, between the experimental and the established. Whatever my hon. Friend says, in the world of the arts and opera I do not think that a clash of personalities is always the weak excuse that she thinks it is. Sometimes, certainly within my experience, it is very real indeed.
I hope that the House will accept that it is not possible for the Government to deal directly with problems of this sort, or to try to resolve this sort of difficulty. Indeed, I hope that the argument this morning has indicated that we would be wrong to try, because all that my hon. Friend has produced are problems and disputes on artistic matters involving judgment and matters of taste. It is for just those reasons that they are not suitable for direct Government intervention.
I hope that even my hon. Friend will agree that in the arts it is the Arts Council which should handle disputes and difficulties that may arise. If it is a question of waste of public money, it is for the Treasury and for the Government, but if it is really a controversy over whether it

has been well spent from an artistic point of view, this is not a matter which is directly for Treasury Ministers or for the Government. This is why my right hon. Friend said the other day, and I repeat now, that we do not see any need to revise the system as such.
I hope that my hon. Friend will agree with that, in principle, and perhaps I might put her right on a matter of fact. The panels to which she referred are specialist, purely advisory panels, and any decision is a matter for the Arts Council as a whole. The panels have no executive capacity of their own. I was not sure whether my hon. Friend appreciated that.

Dame Irene Ward: My hon. Friend is extremely naive. Is not he aware that the panels do all the advising and all the controlling, and that Professor Anthony Lewis has controlled a great deal? Will my hon. Friend tell me how often the Arts Council meets, and what detail it goes into with regard to the advice given to it by the panels? I do not think that my hon. Friend knows enough about this.

Mr. Macmillan: My hon. Friend is anticipating me on this. I am still on the principle of the system. I do not expect my hon. Friend to agree that there is no need to review the working of the system, but I hoped to get her to agree that the system "en principe" was the right one. We do not regard it as necessary to review the working of the Arts Council, or to set up an inquiry for that purpose.
My hon. Friend said that there were very few people concerned. Her charge—if I am not putting words into her mouth—was that in the matter of the arts the Arts Council was a stage arrangement that went round and round, and I think that the article in the Queen referred to it as cross-pollinisation, or some such phrase.
It is true that there are a limited number of people who are enthusiastic, knowledgeable, and willing to give their time to this. Anyone who has had to deal with voluntary and semi-voluntary organisations of this nature will appreciate the extreme difficulty of getting people to devote the time and the knowledge that it requires. Even in this House, there is a tendency for those who are willing to work and give time to the


problems of those living on small fixed incomes, or of personal or contractual savings, to be few in number, but the fact that there are so few enthusiasts in any one subject does not necessarily invalidate their work or make it ineffective.
To sum up, during the course of this morning a great deal has been said and put on the record, some of which is still a matter for an inquiry. I should like to reassert and again get on the record the fact that this inquiry, although not independent in the sense that my hon. Friend would like it to be, is certainly autonomous and is conducted by men of position and integrity who cannot be suspected of wishing to cover up improper practices and whose concern it is to resolve the problems of the London Opera Centre and to see that institution work successfully.
From the difficulties of the London Opera Centre, my hon. Friend has deduced and built up a whole structure of what can only be called sinister relationships and activities. These allegations I must go on record as rejecting. From the sinister aspect of the work of the Arts Council in the matter of the Carl Rosa Opera Company and of the London Opera School, my hon. Friend has deduced that the Arts Council is not fit, either in organisation or in personnel, to carry out the work that is entrusted to it.
My hon. Friend has asked the Treasury and Treasury Ministers to institute a totally independent inquiry into these matters. Again, I must go on record as rejecting the accusation which my hon. Friend has made against individuals and say once more that we have faith in the Arts Council. We believe that the artistic problems, disputes and difficulties should be left in the Council's hands. We retain overriding financial control by reason of the fact that the Treasury has responsibility to ensure that public money is spent properly, but we do not regard this as giving us the right to intervene in matters of taste and artistic questions.
I cannot go any further this morning and I hope that the House would not wish me or my hon. Friend to pursue these accusations any further.

TRANSPORT (WEST MIDLANDS)

6.13 a.m.

Mr. John Stonehouse: On Friday, 17th July, the Express and Star, a newspaper published in Wolverhampton and widely read in the West Midlands, including the constituency of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) and my own, carried a headlined report on the front page:
He does it—at 403 m.p.h. Campbell triumphs. Scorched tyre drama.
There follows the report of Donald Campbell in his Bluebird car hurtling to a new world land speed record on the salt flats in Australia.
Many of my constituents were delighted by this success, because quite a number of them contribute indirectly to the expense of this venture. They work for a firm the proprietor of which contributes very considerable sums to the Campbell attempt, and, therefore, they contribute through their work to the finances of this success story. So they rejoice at this success.
But I ask the House to consider the contrast between the Express and Star of 17th July and the Express and Star of 25th July. There was another headline story:
Jam yesterday, jam tomorrow, jam today. Traffic snarl-up may be the worst ever.
The story read:
Almost continuously since late yesterday afternoon, the main traffic artery between the M5 and M6 motorways, and the towns on that road, principally Wolverhampton and Stourbridge, have probably faced their worst holiday traffic jams ever. Most of the holdups have affected southbound traffic destined for the West country, which now faces one such jam almost every 30 miles on its route, and nose-to-tail driving in between.
What a contrast between the two stories! We have one man going at 403 m.p.h. while the people who help to finance his speed attempt often cannot go at 4 m.p.h. and at the best of times cannot travel at even 40 m.p.h.
I submit that we are getting our priorities wrong. Cannot we think of the welfare of motorists at home who want to be able to drive in a little more comfort than they can now? I make no apology for drawing the attention of the House, after a very long debate through most of which I have sat here mute


though very anxious indeed to participate in some of the discussions, but restraining myself, to a problem which is of very great importance to my constituents and, indeed, to the whole of the West Midlands.
The fact is that the number of cars, many parts of which are produced in my constituency, being poured on to the roads is creating traffic jams all over the country, but particularly in the West Midlands, and it is about that that I want to speak. First, I should like to refer to some national statistics to get the matter into perspective. The number of cars pre-war in the United Kingdom was 2 million, and it has now increased to 7½ million. The number of goods vehicles pre-war was 500,000, and it has increased to 1½ million. The total number of vehicles on the road has increased from 3 million to 11½ million. But the mileage available to those vehicles has not increased by anything like the same amount. The number of roads has not increased to any great extent. Trunk and Class I roads prewar totalled 27,000 miles, and now the total even including motorways, is only 29,000. Roads in the United Kingdom, including unclassified roads, pre-war totalled 179,000 miles; the figure today is 198,000 miles. That is an increase of 10 per cent. in road mileage for an increase in the number of road vehicles of 300 per cent. The position is that the number of vehicles per road mile in Great Britain in 1962 was 40·9. This is the worst of any country in the world apart from West Germany, which has 42·6 vehicles per road mile.
The difference between West Germany and Britain is that the West Germans are spending so much more on building new roads than we are. We are spending far too little considering the size of our problem. The Minister of Transport has been very skilful at gaining national publicity for some of his "gimmicks" but he has not been able in the last few years seriously to tackle the great problems of providing enough new roads for the increasing number of vehicles in use.
What does he set out to do? I have here a Conservative Party publication which is, strangely, entitled "Movement". That word does not mean very much to drivers in the traffic jams of the

West Midlands. They are apt to laugh cynically at it. The pamphlet was published by the Conservative Party on 1st December, 1963. The Minister said:
… my job is to reshape and adapt our transport system so that it can play its part in the Conservative policy for modernising Britain… This process falls into three stages. First, the problem itself must be clearly defined and accurately measured.
The Minister has failed to do that in relation to the West Midlands. There has been no comprehensive regional survey of the West Midlands transport problems. It has been left to Birmingham City Council and other local authorities to tackle the job. The Minister went on:
Secondly, the technical facts and figures must be collected and analysed by scientific methods. This takes time, it is true, but it is just no use taking action on mere 'hunches'—which generally take hardly any time at all.
But that is exactly what he is doing in relation to the West Midlands. Instead of waiting for data to be collected as a result of scientific investigation of the problem, he is allowing the railways in the West Midlands to be closed down one after the other before this survey is completed. The Minister wrote about his third stage:
… when and only when the solution becomes clear, action must be the order of the day. And we want speed in execution plus value for money spent.
What rubbish! Speed in execution with only 10 per cent. more roads provided than before the war? Speed in execution when we have the West Midlands road system held back and delayed?
True, the motorways are being completed bit by bit, but this is making the problems of the West Midlands conurbation more and more serious because the effect of the motorway development is to concentrate into the motorways the traffic that previously filtered through England and Wales by fairly secondary routes. The result is that it comes down these arteries and then is pumped into the veins of the West Midlands—veins which cannot carry the pressure. It is no wonder that some road users are breaking blood vessels as a result of the pressure.

Mr. William Yates: The hon. Member must take into account the Gailey crossroads where the M.1 and the M.6 cross the A.5. In another two years all that will be altered by the motorway itself.

Mr. Stonehouse: The hon. Member is proving my point. What lack of planning there has been! I agree that the Gailey position is very serious. The vehicles travel along the M.6 and when they reach the terminal point there are often big jams and sometimes they have to wait hours to get through. When they come to Stourbridge and Wednesbury there are more hours of delay. Is this planning? Has the Minister of Transport given any consideration to this problem at all? He should have developed the motorways through the conurbations before developing the motorways outside in order to avoid this trouble.
The hon. Gentleman has said that the motorway from Gailey is to be extended and that he may not have this trouble in two years' time, but the trouble will then be on my own doorstep, because the terminal point will then be in my constituency. The authorities in my constituency are very concerned about this, because in two years' time the traffic coming from the north on the M.6 will be pushed out at the end of the motorway right into the middle of Darlaston where, if it is to join the M.5, it will have to push its way through Darlaston, Wednesbury, West Bromwich and Tipton. These streets are residential streets, streets with schools, high streets with shopping centres and they are the worst possible streets to carry this through traffic. I agree that the problem will be removed from Gailey, but it is coming to Darlaston.
What my constituents and I are complaining about is that we do not want this tremendous amount of traffic pushed through our internal roads because of the danger, not only to other road users, but to pedestrians and school children going to school and housewives going about their shopping. I accuse the Minister of Transport of giving inadequate thought to this problem and not adhering to the stages which he set himself in this Conservative document.
On page 16 of this document, the Minister described the Government's transport principles—elevating the Minister's approach to this problem to principles. The first is freedom of choice and he says:

It is the customer who pays. He must be free to choose which of the available means of transport he will use.
The customer is not being given any choice where the railway lines are being closed. He is being told that he must get on a bus, a bus which sometimes takes twice as long as the train, a bus often more expensive than the train and a bus which is inconvenient and uncomfortable. There is no choice there unless he uses his own car, and then he comes up against the traffic jams which I have mentioned.
The second principle is freedom to develop. He says:
Conditions must be created in which each form of transport can fully develop its individual often unique, characteristics …
This is quite false, because systems of transport are not able to develop in any imaginative way apart, I concede, from main line railway routes. This is a principle which is no longer implemented in practice.
The third principle is that there must be effective co-ordination. There is no co-ordination at all in the West Midlands. What co-ordination has there been between the closures of railways lines and the development of bus services? There has been no co-ordination with the municipalities who have been complaining about these closures and who have initiated their own survey to try to get some of the facts which the Minister should have discovered before approving these closures.
I have raised this problem because the Minister is failing to put into effect either the stages or the principles which he has said in this document he believes in, and this is leading to serious problems in my constituency. I have already mentioned the Express and Star report about the jams which occurred a week ago. In the same newspaper there was the report of a debate of the Staffordshire County Council when many members pressed for road improvements which they regarded as essential if road conditions in Staffordshire were to be improved. Several pertinent points were made during that discussion.
The Ministry has failed in its job of planning road development and giving approval in time for local authorities to undertake essential road development.
When I say there is concern in my constituency, I can quote from the


Wednesbitry and Darlaston Times on Saturday, 11th July, in which there is a report by the president of the Wednesbury and District Liberal Association, Mr. A. J. Griffiths, who said—referring to the development of the M6 Motorway:
I am certain that unless the feeder roads in Wednesbury are vastly improved before the motorway arrives at Wood Green, there will be traffic chaos in the town.
At the moment, all we know about the new traffic routes through Wednesbury is that they are in the planning stage.
He goes on to point out how serious this congestion will be when the motorway is completed in four years' time. He is referring to the problem of the feeder roads coming to the motorway. This is a long-term problem, and I agree that it does raise serious problems because the feeder roads are not being upgraded and improved at a fast enough rate to carry the traffic which will undoubtedly be attracted to the M6 and the M5 when they are completed.
In my opinion, the Wednesbury Borough Council and other authorities in my constituency are alive to this problem and want to do all they can. I have had representations from many of them in the past about road development in my constituency, but I must say that there has been no anxiety on the part of the Ministry to encourage the improvement of these roads. I hope the Minister will do what he can to get these road improvements under way so that we can have better feeder roads before the M6 and the M5 are completed.
The delays in road improvements were brought home to me by one of the officials in one of my authorities, who said that when he joined the authority in 1939 he knew applications had been made for two bridges to be improved before he came on the staff. These applications have only just been approved, years afterwards, and I hope work is now going to start on these dangerous bridges. This is an example of the dilatory way in which the Ministry has reacted to legitimate requests from the authorities for road improvements. Instead they have pushed ahead with motorway improvements which have added to the difficulties of some of these authorities.
I want now to refer in detail to the rail closures in the West Midlands, because

this is no less serious than the road problem. Firstly, may I refer to a subject which has been brought to the attention of the House by a Motion in the name of the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) and some other hon. Gentlemen opposite complaining about the possible closure of the Redditch-Birmingham railway. Some of my hon. Friends from this side of the House and myself have put down an Amendment to it, pointing out that the hon. Gentlemen who signed the original Motion in fact voted after the debate on 30th April, 1963, for the Beeching proposals. Therefore they are quite hypocritical to be complaining now about the closure of this particular railway line.
But I entirely agree that it is the height of lunacy to be closing the Redditch-Birmingham line when at the same time plans are announced for the building of a new town for Redditch. As Councillor W. Stranz, chairman of the Redditch Planning Committee, wrote in an article in the Birmingham Post of 21st July,
If the Redditch station is closed the new town will have to be planned on entirely different principles. For what it is worth, the fundamental concept on which the new designation was based by the Minister will have been undermined. Is it really too much to hope that someone in Government will have sufficient authority to stop this freak exercise in excessive departmentalisation by two Ministries?".
This opinion is confirmed by David Eversley, reader in social history at Birmingham University, who said:
If, as a result of the West Midland Regional Plan now being prepared, supposedly by an inter-departmental committee, it is decided that suburban rail lines are essential to keep traffic flowing, the deficit should be borne by the Ministry of Transport out of general taxation".
He said that this proposal to close down the Redditch line
illustrates the breakdown of regional planning. The three Ministries concerned are, as usual, at loggerheads with each other …
The Minister of Transport does not know what the other Ministries are doing. There is a complete lack of regional planning.
This is making it very difficult for authorities such as Redditch and for anyone else who is concerned about these railway closures. I have had many complaints from constituents and from others who are worried about rail closures. At least three stations in the constituency are being closed. What is to be the


position of the Snow Hill-Wolverhampton line? Is it proposed that this line will be closed in time? A number of lines are being closed, and gradually the railway network of the West Midlands is being queezed out of existence.
This is very foolish, bearing in mind that no comprehensive survey has been made of the transport needs of the West Midlands. The traffic which is being forced off the railways is adding to the congestion on the roads. There can be no argument about that. Many people who were travelling by rail in comparative comfort are finding that having to go by bus is very inconvenient. The Minister should bear in mind customer needs as well as looking at the false profitability aspect. I say "false profitability" because as the Railways Board indicated in its very interesting document—"A study of the relative true costs of rail and road freight transport"—it is not simply a question of adding the costs of rail travel and comparing them with the cost of travelling by. bus, or of comparing the cost with that of sending freight by lorry over existing roads. As this survey rightly shows—and it would also apply to passenger traffic—when the full costs, are taken into account, including the full costs of trunk road development, as well as current costs, rail travel turns out to be cheaper than road travel.

Mr. W. Yates: This is very important. Is the hon. Member saying that these railways are being closed and that the Ministry of Transport has not sufficient money from the Treasury to put roads in their place? For example, in the new town of Dawley we do not know whether the Minister has any money even to improve the access roads.

Mr. Stonehouse: I am saying that there has been a complete lack of planning at the Ministry. They do not know where they are going. Railways are being closed without any proper consideration of alternative transport facilities. Within a few years the railways will have to be re-opened because of the sheer congestion on the roads, unless the roads are improved to a much greater extent than I think even the new Administration, which will come into power at the end of the year, will be able to do.
I return to the question of the relative costs and would quote from this document prepared by British Railways

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): That is evidence of the Geddes Committee and has absolutely nothing to do with railway closures. The hon. Member can refer to it if he wants to, but it is something on which I shall be unable to reply, because, as he knows, the Minister has no powers with regard to freight.

Mr. Stonehouse: I want to put these comparisons on record. If they can be made with regard to freight carriage they can be made for passenger travel as well, because the cost of building roads for passenger bus transport is also extremely considerable. I am suggesting that it would probably be less socially expensive to have the existing railways kept in existence. For 100 miles trunk distance per ton by road in a 10-ton vehicle the cost is 36s. 6d. per ton and by rail it is 23s. 9d. per ton. For 300 miles, it is 74s. by trunk road, 67s. by motorway, and 32s. by rail. I give those figures as examples. They show that when all the costs are taken into account it is cheaper to carry goods by rail than by the roads which are already overcrowded.
Many of the railways will continue to be used for freight transport although they are closed to passengers. If at some time in the future the lines themselves were closed it would be a very great embarrassment to the proper development of freight transport which this survey undoubtedly shows is cheaper by rail transport. So I regret very much that the Minister has given his approval to rail closures, particularly in my constituency, about which I had several questions to ask, and about which I wrote to the Minister some time ago.
I would refer to what I wrote to the Minister on 6th May. I said I did not think it was satisfactory to substitute additional bus services for the rail services now available, and I pointed out to him that the roads were already overcrowded, and that this was likely to be even more accentuated with the extension of the motorway and that as it came into use the roads in the Wednesbury area would largely be used as access roads. I said that bus services were


likely to be slow and inadequate as a result of this overcrowding. I asked him to give further consideration to this decision for the discontinuance of the passenger services, and I asked him to consider the use of conductor-driver operated diesel services with perhaps only one or two carriages which would obviate the necessity for station staff, when circumstances did not justify station staff.
When the hon. Gentleman replied to me on 14th May he did not refer to the suggestion that there should be conductor-operated services. I ask him now, has there been no consideration in the Ministry of this suggestion? I do not pretend that this is a new idea. Other countries have rail transport without station staff. People get on a train without let or hindrance and then pay their fares to the conductor-driver. Those railways do not have extra costs of station staff, guards, and so on, because the trains are run like buses. Is it not possible for some of our railways to be run in this way, so that we can have faster transport for people in the West Midlands, and avoiding the expensive overheads of full-scale railway services? I should like the Minister to answer that point.
I turn to the longer-term problems of transport in the West Midlands. So far I have been referring to the comparatively short-term problems. I have spoken of the immediate problem which will arise when the motorway is extended to my constituency and the congestion which will occur as a result with the whole of the traffic from the West and the North trying to push its way through the conurbations. I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with this problem by three motorways so that instead of having to wait for four years we may look forward to it being dealt with in two. Then there is the problem of the possible use of railways which are now being closed. I hope that he will intervene to prevent that and will look at other ways of saving overhead expenses and at least wait until the survey is completed.
Looking ahead 10 or 15 years, what will be the problems for the West Midlands conurbation? It is a very imporant industrial area right in the heart of Britain with a population of 5 million or more.

It is a very prosperous area contributing a considerable amount to the income of the United Kingdom. The people in this area are entitled as of right to a decent transport system. While we are helping Donald Campbell to achieve 400 miles an hour, we should try to achieve more than 40 miles an hour, which is at present the maximum possible in the West Midlands area across the conurbation.
I suggest that we should have a survey not limited to immediate transport problems, but looking to the longer-term problems of the 1980s. We should work out the cost and value of developing a transport system related to the needs of those areas. We should consider either an underground system or a monorail system for the West Midlands so that we could have quick, easy and comfortable transport for the people who live in this industrial area. It now takes several hours to travel from the north of Walsall to the other side of Birmingham. It takes a long time to travel from one side of Wolverhampton to the other side of Birmingham or Solihull. It takes far too long for people in my constituency—and, I am sure, the constituency of the hon. Member for the Wrekin—to get to shopping centres in the middle of Birmingham or to places of entertainment. This is ridiculous in this day and age.

Mr. W. Yates: Surely, if the hon. Member is looking 10 or 20 years ahead, he should ask the Minister to consider the whole question of "hovering" a way down from the Midlands into the Common Market countries?

Mr. Stonehouse: I am concerned at the moment with traffic within the conurbation. I do not think we can deal with that transport problem, involving, as it would, hundreds of thousands of passengers by hovercraft. I am suggesting a monorail system to deal with the problem in those areas.
I refer the Minister to an article written by C. D. Foster, research fellow in the economics of transport at Oxford, in The Times. It was about the Victoria Line. He examined some interesting statistices in terms of the balance-sheet of social returns from developments and made a plea for the calculations of the kind he had made about the Victoria line to be more widespread.
He concludes that it should be natural for a public enterprise or responsible


Government or local authority Department to make such as estimate—that is, of social returns—when deciding how to invest large sums of money. He showed, for example, that the return on the capital cost in the Victoria line of £48 million would be about 11·2 per cent. complete social return. After 50 years the return would be as much as 15 per cent. This shows that when all the factors are taken into account of even large capital sums—such as those involved in the development of underground railways at today's costs—the return in terms of social value is considerable.
This sort of survey should be carried out for the West Midlands so that we have before us the value, in social terms, of new developments in transport systems. I say this because he points out that social return estimates must be based not solely on considerations of profitability. We should take his advice. In this connection, I hope that in the provision of new transport developments for the West Midlands, we shall be thinking in terms of providing the facilities which the people of the area really deserve. They need fast transport to their employment and places of entertainment. We hope that gradually they will have more leisure time, so they must be able to get out into the countryside to enjoy that leisure. We must also remember the changes that are taking place in industrial techniques, automation and so on and realise that men are having to travel further to work.
All these developments mean that efficient transport facilities are the key to industrial success, social benefit and convenience. I urge the experts in the Ministry to pay attention to these problems and not to get bogged down by the short-term problems, although I agree that those, too, must be solved. They should raise their sights high, but, above all, they must remember that the consumer, our constituent, is all-important, far more important than mere profitability and economics. They must think of the social value of transport systems. Only by public transport are so many people able to go to and from their work, go on holiday, attend school and so on. Investment in good transport service is investment in terms of real social welfare.

6.54 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) felt it necessary to begin his speech with an attack on my right hon. Friend. The Opposition frequently do that and I have no doubt that the reason is that my right hon. Friend is so extremely successful in running the transport system of the country. I also thought that the hon. Member spoke rather too slowly and for too long, bearing in mind the hour. However, he covered a great deal—railways, roads, motorways, buses and one thing and another—and I will try to deal with as many of the matters as I can.
The hon. Gentleman made one criticism of my right hon. Friend, by saying that we were not spending enough money on roads. Perhaps he will have a word with his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who said that it was impossible to spend more than the present Government are spending on roads, schools, housing, and one thing and another. The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind therefore what he is to cut—or perhaps he is to get rid of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East; I do not know.
I should like to place his problem in its proper perspective. As he says, the West Midlands does occupy a key place in the national transport system. This has certain advantages in that there is always a great deal of work going on, but there are disadvantages, too, in that vast volumes of traffic are generated in the place. In our plans, we try to deal with this by making in the West Midlands conurbation the key junction of three major motorways. Those motorways are the M.1 to London, the M.5 to South Wales and the M.6 to industrial Lancashire. The hon. Member's constituency will be linked by a new trunk road direct to the M.6 and thence to the M.5 and the M.1—

Mr. Stonehouse: But will the Minister concede that that will not be completed for another four years and, in the meantime, there will be considerable growth in my constituency and elsewhere?

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman must not do that. He must let me make


my speech. This is one of his main points, and I am trying to deal with it.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the need for transport surveys. The need for these was emphasised in the Buchanan Report, and now, only a very short time after the Buchanan Report, the major local authorities in this area and my right hon. Friends' Department are together—together—getting a comprehensive survey under way. The hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that the local authorities were doing this work on their own. They are, naturally, responsible locally, because the solution to the problem is local, but they are doing it in conjunction with my right hon. Friend. Consultants have been appointed, and detailed work on the survey will start in the autumn. The whole process is expected to take about two years.
I will not refer to the amounts of money being spent on roads in the hon. Member's constituency—but they are very considerable, amounting to about £9 million worth of new road works over the next 5-year period up to 1968–69—but I shall concentrate on the problem of the feeder roads in which he and my hon. Friend the Member for the Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) were interested.
There are two aspects to this problem of feeder roads. First of all, there is the problem of access to the temporary terminals of a motorway which is still under construction, and, secondly, the ultimate trunk roads that will serve the completed motorway. Ideally, I suppose, what we should do is to build all motorways and all feeder roads at the same time so that all traffic can move easily on all journeys whether inside or outside of towns. That is what the hon. Gentleman was suggesting, and it shows how thoroughly and hopelessly impracticable he is, because that just cannot be done.
We have to go forward a step at a time. That is what planning means—going forward a step at a time. After all, the hon. Member's area, important though it is, is only one of many important areas in Britain. This involves two things. The first is that during the construction of lengths of motorway there will be difficulties at temporary terminals. Secondly, the phasing of the costly, and inevitably slower, re-organisation of our towns must for a time create some problems on the

routes which feed the motorways. Buchanan envisages the new organisation being spread over 40 years—that is the period of which he is thinking.
I should like to give some examples of what we are doing. The junction at Walsall on the M6 will be fed by the Willenhall bypass, the Bilston bypass and the Bilston link on the west. The northern and southern relief roads at West Bromwich will link with the motorway on a junction at A.41. These are all in the existing programme, and work has already started. Also work has already been or is being carried out on other roads like the A.4123 to the Oldbury junction, the A.4097 to the Gravelley Hill junction, the A.34 to the Perry Barr junction and the A.456 to the Quinton junction.
Whatever the hon. Member says, this is not too bad a record, but I agree that the heavy loads which these roads carry while the motorways are being built, though temporary, may seem to call for major work on existing roads. The A.5 is a good example where at present it is carrying the load between the M.1 and the M.6. The solution of this difficulty is to press on as best we can, as my right hon. Friend is doing, with the relieving motorway and not spend money on the old road which will become quieter once the motorway is built.
The hon. Member referred to two railway bridges which he said had taken too long to be dealt with. This may be a case of people in glass houses not being wise to throw stones, because these were programmed in 1962–63 but grant applications were not made until later. We agreed that work on these two bridges should start quickly, because they were related to the Midland Region electrification programme, and I do not think that the hon. Member would criticise us for that, but in the circumstances it was possible and desirable to base the grant on the contract and not on the estimate. This was obviously sensible and the grant will be issued in a matter of days. I suggest that the hon. Member is in a glass house because he pressed a small scheme on the Department in 1958 for which grant was issued in 1959 but was cancelled in May, 1962, because the scheme had never been started. Therefore we can call ourselves quits over that.
The hon. Member drew attention to bus services and the need to reorganise them. I am sure that he appreciates that the licensing of bus services is in the hands of the traffic commissioners. They are an independent body and my right hon. Friend cannot intervene. He also referred to the need for co-ordination between bus services. I understand that there is a great deal of co-operation and common running arrangements between municipalised services like those of Birmingham and West Bromwich and between private and municipal operators like the Midland Red and Birmingham. But one cannot be dogmatic on whether there is or is not enough co-ordination now. Facts are a first essential for rational argument and the transport survey now under way will provide them. Until we know more it would not be wise to say that this or that bit of reorganisation needs to be done.
The hon. Member referred to new forms of transport and to Mr. Foster's examination of the Victoria line. He called it the social aspect, but that term is rather out of date now. It has nothing to do with the social aspect, it is a question of the total economic cost. The Minister is well aware of the value of these studies and we have commissioned a number of them with the universities, as I am sure the hon. Member will be glad to hear. Unorthodox forms of transport have been mentioned in the debate, among them the monorail. We shall have to wait for what comes out of the survey to see whether or not that will be a useful or possible form of transport in the area.
Perhaps the most important matter that the hon. Member raised was that of railway closures. He worried about his constituency. The one line which has been closed so far is the Walsall-Dudley line. In this case my right hon. Friend concluded after careful consideration that the right course was to agree to the closure. The average daily user on the line was about 140 people in each direction and only 20 of them used Wednesbury town station. The Transport Users Consultative Committee had concluded that in general there were adequate alternative services—and that is an important matter—and it made no proposals of additional bus services. My right hon. Friend came to the conclusion that the existing bus services were ade-

quate for journeys over the whole length of the line and to and from intermediate stations, but nevertheless he recognised that there would be hardship for people travelling on the 4½ miles between Walsall and Dudley Port, because of the number of times that they would have had to change buses on the existing services and the consequent increase in journey time. To meet this difficulty my right hon. Friend imposed a condition in his consent, that a through bus should be provided in the morning and evening peak for these travellers. My right hon. Friend rather went out of his way to do so, because this is not something which the T.U.C.C. had recommended.
In all this my right hon. Friend had to take some account of the cost, and the loss at which each service was running. I know that this is something of which hon. Members opposite do not like to be reminded. It was running at a loss of £17,000 per annum, which means that each person who used the railway was being subsidised to the extent of approximately 30s. a week, and, in the light of the T.U.C.C. report, my right hon. Friend did not think that this was a legitimate way to spend public money.

Mr. Stonehouse: Surely the hon. Gentleman appreciates that any road development costs an immense amount of money. If, for instance, the Buchanan proposals were put into effect in full, they would cost every family in the country £200 a year, or £4 a week. Transport has got to be paid for in some way or other. Road expenditure is paid for by taxation. It is ridiculous of the Minister to give the impression that rail transport can be dealt with in this very special way. It cannot.

Mr. Galbraith: I can understand the hon. Gentleman getting impatient at this time of the morning. This is the second time that he has tried to get me to deal with a point which I am just about to come to. He wants all the roads to be built at once. He obviously wants me to make my speech in one second, which is not possible.
Before reaching his decision, my right hon. Friend took fully into account the effect of the closure on road traffic congestion, but he decided, after having technical advice, that traffic conditions were unlikely to be affected appreciably. There


are only a couple of extra buses being put on; 140 people are not many and they can be carried in three buses.
With regard to the future—and this is a point in which the hon. Gentleman was interested—my right hon. Friend took steps to ensure that the ultimate transport pattern which would emerge from the conurbation transport survey would not be prejudiced by the closure. He asked the Board to notify him if at any time it decided to dispose of any of the land occupied by the Walsall—Dudley line or if it wanted to enter into any arrangement which would permit it to be used for any other purpose. It is reserving its position as far as the future is concerned. If the traffic survey shows that some of the ideas that the hon. Gentleman suggested are the right answer, the link is available, but at the moment it is not being properly used. People have shown that they do not want to use it.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Snow Hill—Wednesbury line. The position is that the Railways Board has given advance notice—that is all—under section 54 of the Transport Act, of the intention to close a number of services from Birmingham, Snow Hill, and these would involve the closure of Wednesbury Central station. But this is only advance notice. It is not a Section 56 notice, which is a definite proposal, and until there is a definite proposal my right hon. Friend is not involved in the matter.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the Redditch new town and to an article in the Birmingham Post. This article contained a number of suggestions about the procedure for the consideration of closure proposals, but as this has been dealt with on many occasions in the House I do not think I should waste any time on it now. There is a proper procedure for examining all aspects of closure proposals to which objections are made. There is full consultation between my right hon. Friend's Department and other Departments before any decision is reached, and, where a new town is involved, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is brought in. This is a point which was touched on at an earlier stage by the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tam-worth (Mr. Snow), who, to some extent, anticipated points made now by the hon. Member for Wednesbury. Representa-

tions from local authorities and other bodies are, of course, fully weighed.
In the past year, there have been approximately 12 Adjournment debates on railway closures, and only three weeks ago we had a full day's debate mainly on railway closures. I do not want to repeat what I said then.
The hon. Gentleman referred to freight costs and suggested that they had some relationship to the cost of passenger transport and buses. I think that we had better wait and see what comes out of the Geddes Committee, because the figures which the hon. Gentleman quoted are the railways' figures, and we do not know whether they are right or wrong.
I have tried to deal as fully as I can with the matters which the hon. Gentleman has raised, and I trust that I have not been speaking too quickly. I hope that I have been able to set his constituents' minds at rest at least on what we are doing as regards the feeder roads and the very great care we take before we decide to give the Railways Board consent to close a railway line. The main point is that the transport problems of the Wednesbury constituency are intimately and inextricably bound up with those of the West Midlands conurbation as a whole, and their solution can be achieved only as part of an overall plan. What may be difficult to understand in local terms must be judged as part of the wider complex. Although the hon. Gentleman may be able to appreciate that, it will be more difficult for his constituents to do so, but he will be able to educate them and explain it from the local angle.
To deal with the conurbation's problems, we and the local authorities are bringing to bear a powerful new weapon in the armoury of transport planning, that is, the conurbation transport survey. It will be some time before this can be completed. Meanwhile, we are pressing on with the steps which can be justified in their own right, that is, some rationalisation of rail services after a careful study of the consequences, development of the essential motorway links, and a massive expenditure, within orderly priorities, on modernising the main conurbation road structure. The hon. Gentleman, as a devotee of planning, will appreciate the need for priorities, even if his constituents may not. There


must be some such appraisal, and it may be that someone else has a better case than oneself.
Although I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to concur, I think that any impartial observer would agree that my right hon. Friend's period of stewardship at the Ministry of Transport has been very fruitful indeed, not least in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and the West Midlands region.

DAWLEY (UNIVERSITY)

7.13 a.m.

Mr. William Yates: If there be anything which wants modernising, it must certainly be the procedures of this place. For Members to have to go through a whole night on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill in this way is neither sensible nor tolerable, and, when we come back in November, we must look at the system under which we conduct our business. No prudent man would dream of running any organisation in this sort of way.
I have to apologise to the House because I, like any other hon. Member, desired to raise a very important change in the Midlands by way of an Adjournment debate, but, incredible though it may seem, throughout the whole of July there was not time available for me to do so, and, judging by the presence of other hon. Members in the Chamber, it was impossible for many others to raise matters of concern to them. The subject which I wished to raise concerns the establishment of a university in a new town of over 90,000 inhabitants in the Midlands. Naturally, I wish now to exercise my right to speak on the Bill.
On 18th January, 1963, the Minister of Housing and Local Government announced, not to the House but to the Press—and he was kind enough to tell me—that a major decision had been taken which would alter the social life of the Midlands, that a new town, for 90,000 people, covering 9,100 acres of South Shropshire, the majority of it in my constituency and part of it in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More), would be designated which would create housing and employment for the Black Country and for the people of Birmingham in particular. This news

was received with some relief, because much of the work of the local councils had been held up, and at last we were told that this new town would be ours.
The next thing that people began to consider was what sort of new town was it going to be. Let us be quite clear about this. This area is going to present one of the major challenges to town planners in this country. Not only is part of the area studded with pit shafts of the first Industrial Revolution, but its levels are extraordinary. Although parts of it are exceptionally beautiful, some of it is perhaps not the sort of place where, at first sight, one would think of making a new town. Fortunately, however, with the equipment that we have today, everything is very much easier than it was 10 or 20 years ago.
We are going to create a new town for people to live in, to work in, but what else? Anybody can build factories. Anybody can build houses and put people in them. But is that all that is to be created? It seems to me that the first fundamental to consider in creating a new town is the soul, the spirit, and the purpose of it. To start a nuclear reactor, one must have a critical mass to get it going. What was going to be the intellectual critical mass or the social centre of this large new town for 90,000 people? Many of the executives may live outside the town. Would not we get a uniform strata of society in that town?
Quite rightly, the first to suggest a change in the idea of the new town was The Wrekin Trades Council, supported by The Wrekin Labour Party, and, at a later date, I conceived the idea that perhaps just a new town with a university, though desirable, proper and suitable, was not imaginative enough for the twentieth century, for the party that was modernising Britain, for the party that was supporting the Robbins Report. It was certainly not imaginative enough for me.
I suggested that the Government might consider the creation of a university town. That could be done by permitting the New Town Development Corporation to consider, within the master plan, the creation of Britain's first new university town since Cambridge. Fortunately, very fortunately, the general manager of the Corporation, Mr. Penrhyn Owen, replied to my suggestion that this would give a unique planning opportunity to this coun-


try and to the whole of the Midlands. So at one stage one person at least was interested in this concept. I therefore began to see whether any other people would be interested in it. Fortunately, the Birmingham City Council, which was aware of other proposals, expressed the view that any new university should be situated in Dawley.
Let us consider what other proposals might jeopardise the whole concept of the creation of the new university town for science, technology and industrial research. The first opposition came from Wolverhampton Corporation, which thought that Wrottesley Park, with salubrious and pleasant surroundings, might be a better place. Fortunately, Birmingham City Council has informed Wolverhampton that it considers that Dawley would be the better centre industrially for the West Midlands.
That, however, was not the only plan that would wreck this concept to create a new university town. The other problem was the idea of creating a university for Shropshire. This has been worked on, I understand, for some time by the Shropshire County Council and, in particular, by those interested in education in Shrewsbury. Therefore, there were two other competitors.
During all that time, with all the arguments going to and fro, we never had any political dispute or acrimony. The Wrekin Trades Council, The Wrekin Labour Party, the local councils of Dawley and Much Wedlock and Birmingham City all supported the idea. Party politics never entered the picture until, suddenly, without warning, Mr. Davis, a prospective Liberal candidate, who was born in Shrewsbury, got together the four prospective Liberal candidates for Shropshire and persuaded them to sign a political document, which could do nothing else but damage the chances of the creation of this new scientific university in the new town of Dawley.
That was understandable. The gentleman in question was born in Shrewsbury and is far more interested in Shrewsbury than The Wrekin. Certainly, it was an act of complete disloyalty to the people of Dawley and to the constituency which he hoped to represent. Fortunately, the challenge is not so bad

on a political front, because the prospective Liberal candidate for Shrewsbury has now resigned. Nevertheless, that was the first time that we were confronted with party politics in the creation of the new university town of Dawley.
People support the suggestion of a university, but they ask what sort of university, what its purpose would be and what would it achieve. Very often, places say that they would like a university. It would lend itself to the prestige of the town or the city. Last night, earlier in this debate, we heard about the discussions which have been going on concerning the siting of the new university in Scotland. But this is totally different. It is to give 90,000 people great spirit and purpose. It is also known that the Robbins Committee suggested another university to be sited in the West Midlands, and perhaps we shall hear about that when my right hon. Friend replies.
When one considers how this should be done, it seems that the correct way is for a promotion council to be created and for the new university to receive help from a university already established. It was for this reason that I asked to see the Vice-Chancellor of Birmingham University to ascertain whether he would be prepared to help us. As a result of that conversation, I am convinced that if the Government agree to go ahead with the great concept of the creation of this new university town in the West Midlands, Birmingham would look after the infant as a mother would care for her child. This is a great help to us, because if a new university is suggested it must be able to call on assistance from an already well-established university from the faculty point of view.
I have written four letters to the Minister and two to the Prime Minister and Questions have been asked and answered, and they all lead to the point that the Government say that there is no objection to the development corporation, now in the last stages of preparing the master plan for the end of the year, deciding to reserve an area in which to place the new university. But the Government should go a great deal further and say not only "You may", but "We ask you to do so." It is the difference between


"You can if you want to, and it may be all right", and "We think this should be done, and we give our approval to do it, and we wish to see it done."
To create this new university would only be a tribute to the great heritage of Shropshire. The creation of a new university for science and industrial research would be no more than to pay tribute to the great inventions and the great history and heritage of the Industrial Revolution which was founded in the centre of the new designated area, for it was there that the first iron bridge in the world was built in 1779.
It was there that Trevethick's engine was built. It was there that Abraham Darby made some of the greatest discoveries in metallurgy. Nearby are the famous Coalport China Works. Looking back over the years, one would think that here at least the Government, looking forward to modernising Britain and with their tremendous interest in science and technology, would in co-operation with Birmingham City and with industrialists in the Midlands, give wholehearted approval to the creation of England's first new university city for science and technology to be built in the Midlands, in Dawley New Town. The University should be part and parcel of the master plan for Dawley itself and part of the great plan for Great Britain as she goes into the latter half of the 20th Century.

7.30 a.m.

The Minister of State for Education and Science (Sir Edward Boyle): By leave of the House, I will reply for the third time during the Third Reading on this Bill on the subject of the university expansion programme. If one adds together the speech I made after midnight and the one I made between 3 and 4 a.m., I have already addressed the House for 40 minutes on university topics. As time is getting on and other debates are to follow, I hope my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) will not think me discourteous if I reply rather more briefly to him than I did on the two earlier occasions, particularly as, inevitably, I shall to some extent be covering the same ground.
The position is that the University Grants Committee and the Government are considering a proposal for new uni-

versities during their formulation of a 10-year building expansion programme. The immediate task of the U.G.C. following the Government's statement on the Robbins Report was to see how we could achieve the objective of just under 200,000 full-time students in institutions of university status by 1967–68. I shall quote again what I have already quoted once tonight, from the Government statement:
This immediate operation will be the first step in formulating a 10-year programme for the 390,000 full-time higher education places in Universities, Technical Colleges and Training Colleges by 1973–74, which is recommended in the Report. Of this total 218,000 will be in institutions of University status.
I draw my hon. Friend's attention to two aspects of this Government statement that are relevant to the topic we are discussing. First, I pointed out some hours ago that it may well be that the figure of 390,000 is an understatement. I gave what are good grounds for thinking that the Robbins estimate of those receiving full-time higher education in technical colleges outside the C.A.T.s was probably an understatement of the demand that will develop.
I pointed out that, as far as institutions of university status are concerned, the problem which faces the U.G.C. is the relatively small gap that exists between the university target for 1967–68 and the university target, according to the Robbins Report, for 1973–74. I pointed out that this is a matter of not much over 20,000 extra places, and this represents a very real problem for the U.G.C. in considering all the matters it has before it at the moment, including the matter so pertinently raised and the proposals for special institutions made in the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray). That being so, my hon. Friend must face the fact that at the moment this is the U.G.C.'s big responsibility. I am not in a position to make any statement about any new proposals for a new university over and above the new Scottish university which we were debating a good many hours ago. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that.
I entirely recognise the ambitions of Dawley New Town. My hon. Friend has by implication had one or two harsh things to say about Shrewsbury. Those


of us who know the Shropshire education authority at first hand know that the Shropshire county authorities in Shrewsbury will certainly be ambitious for the new town and its educational future, but my hon. Friend must realise that there are an enormous number of proposals for new universities before the U.G.C.
I mentioned earlier the proposal suggested by the Robbins Committee for new special institutions, but in addition there are the claims of many regional technical colleges which would like to be ungraded. Therefore, I think that my hon. Friend would be surprised—because I am sure that he is aware of the present state of affairs—if I were able to give him a definite answer this morning. All I can promise him is that the U.G.C. and the Government are considering all the proposals which have been put forward, though, as I have pointed out, there is a relatively limited number of new university places within which to operate between 1968 and 1974.
Of course, we have already approved 40 institutions around or of university status. When one adds the old and new universities and the colleges of advanced technology which are to receive university status, the number of institutions already existing which need to be built up during these years is very considerable.
The only other thing I have to say concerns the Dawley Corporation master plan. I hope that my hon. Friend will not think me discourteous if I say that perhaps he has been making slightly heavy weather of this matter in his correspondence with Ministers generally. The Prime Minister put it perfectly fairly, if I may respectfully say so, when he wrote to my hon. Friend:
It is, of course, open to the Development Corporation to reserve land in the Master Plan for a university site if they so wish; and there is no reason to think that the Master Plan need be delayed in any way until a decision is reached on the claims for a new university.
I know that hon. Members on either side of the House sometimes complain about the tone of Ministerial correspondence and of the rather cryptic language which it sometimes contains, but I think that that is a reasonably explicit and clear statement. I can only emphasise again

this morning that the publication of the Dawley development master plan will not of itself prejudice the position of the new town's claim to a university.

Mr. W. Yates: I accept the Prime Minister's reply and what my right hon. Friend says, but if the Prime Minister were saying to the development corporation, "Gentlemen, go ahead and reserve land for a university and if the University Grants Committee agrees that you should have a university, well and good", that would be a different attitude. It is the attitude about which I worry—this attitude of "Reserve the land if you want". It is a matter of emphasis. It is the spirit behind it.

Sir E. Boyle: I will give it this extra piece of emphasis: the largest number of institutions that the U.G.C. can possibly approve as new universities by 1974 and the largest number which the Robbins Committee or anyone else has spoken of is six. I have explained that in recommending to the Government what, if any, the figure should be, the U.G.C. is operating within a very narrow range of numbers. Bearing in mind the number of applications coming in and the number of regional colleges which are looking with ambitious plans to the future, I am bound to say that if my right hon. Friend were to make ambitious speeches starting with the word "Gentlemen" to every single body which put up a project, he would be acting in a very misleading and irresponsible manner. I think that my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend was realistic in view of the present situation and the factors of the new universities and the U.G.C.'s responsibilities which I have described.

Mr. W. Yates: Yes, I understand what the Minister is explaining, but when this request goes to the Prime Minister it is not just a request from some organisation. This is the creation of a town—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. The hon. Member will bear in mind that he is only entitled to make one speech in this debate.

Mr. Yates: I was trying to explain to the Minister the difference of emphasis between what he was saying and what I was saying earlier.

Sir E. Boyle: I have explained this point to the best of my ability, and I think that if we were to carry on any more exchanges on this subject we should exhaust the patience of the House. I ask the hon. Member to be acquiescent to what I have said.

COMPANIES ACT, 1948 (SECTION 165)

7.41 a.m.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: When I put down as one of the subjects to be raised in the debate tonight the Government's policy in regard to the implementation of Section 165 of the Companies Act, I had in mind to ask the Parliamentary Secretary why the Government this year were so eager to use the permissive Clauses of that Act over Rolls Razor, and why they were so unwilling a year ago to use them to investigate the Rachman estate.
I would have greatly enjoyed challenging the Minister on a number of points and presenting him with a great deal of new material which I have brought with me and which will come out sooner or later as evidence of the continued existence of large parts of that Rachman estate, and of continuing chicanery, fraud and concealment of ownership, and many aspects which would have been worth studying.
We should have had a dossier of evidence which could have formed the basis of new legislation for new control over that sort of risk. However, certain more recent information of a more urgent and topical kind has come to light, and it is a rather different kind of speech I am going to make now.
I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for having made himself available at 3.30 a.m. this morning to discuss with me some of the points I am going to raise now, but I am still entitled, I think, to reproach him for not having had the inquiry into the Rachman estate. I submitted to him a year ago a great deal of documented evidence about Deancroft Estates. If he is not sure that the leases were fraudulent, Rachman himself was obviously conscious of it because he executed a deed of surrender when challenged with the matter.
If the inquiry had taken place, in the intervening months we should have had a great deal of information on many points

which I am not going to raise now. We should have received information about the ownership of No. 47, Norfolk Square, Paddington, which is a hotel where Mrs. Rachman used to engage the servants for her own house up in Hampstead, and where a great deal took place in connection with Rachman's affairs.
If the inquiry I urged into further details of that house had been carried out, it would have led us into an examination of the affairs of the Whitfield Corporation. Nos. 34, 35 and 39, Norfolk Square are some of the properties owned by the Whitfield Corporation and Nos. 10, 19 and 20, London Street, Paddington, Nos. 8 and 10, Talbot Square, and No. 24, St. George's Square in Pimlico. Although the Whitfield Corporation is in liquidation, yet Mr. Henry Whitfield himself appears to be controlling and owning these properties, and is at this moment engaged in trying to evict tenants from some of them in the best Rachman style.
An investigation of the Whitfield Corporation would have brought out the name of Henry Whitfield, whose rascally record as an oppressive and shifty owner of slum property in Paddington is written large in the records of Paddington Council, Marylebone County Court and the Rent Tribunal. I will refresh the Minister's ministerial memory, because the facts are in the Ministry, in documents under the control of his own Department, about this rogue Henry Whitfield, who is now the centre of the scandal over Fiesta Tours—a scandal which need not have happened if he had been exposed in time, as he would have been exposed if the inquiry which I suggested had taken place last year.
Mr. Henry Whitfield started his business career by going bankrupt in 1926 for £16,000, which was quite a lot of money in those days. He paid his first and final dividend of 3d. in the £. In 1945 he got 18 months for receiving. On a number of occasions since, companies with which he has been concerned have gone bankrupt.
Last year he was concerned with the "Under 30's Travel Club", which went "bust". He has emerged as the purchaser—so he says—innocent—so he says—inexperienced—so he says—of Fiesta Tours. The Government are faced with a situation in which the public


are alarmed and shocked, and holiday makers at this time, many of whom may have booked with other tourist agencies whose reputation is unchallenged and whose papers may be perfectly valid, are beginning to wonder whether they will be able to make the journey. That is why I am cutting short my speech to enable at the earliest moment the Parliamentary Secretary, if he is ready to do so, to make some reassuring statement about this scandal.
He ought to announce not one but three inquiries. He ought to announce instantly that there is to be a proper inquiry into the affairs of the Whitfield Corporation, which means into the whole of the personal affairs of Mr. Henry Whitfield. Secondly, he ought to announce instantly a Board of Trade inquiry into the affairs of Fiesta Tours. Thirdly, he ought to announce as a longer-term project an inquiry into an aspect of consumer protection in a field where the consumer is most vulnerable—tourist agencies. Urgently as I want the Minister to make that statement, at the same time I do not want him to say anything which would suggest that small, independent travel agencies without much capital should in some way be excluded or suppressed. It would be a mistake, I am sure, if we moved towards a situation in which the big travel agencies, those with the biggest reserves, were the only agencies allowed to operate and the others were excluded. If we are to get the maximum variety, initiative and enterprise in this important field, we must find a place for the man with a bright idea and a new notion of how to go to a new area.
I hope that the Board of Trade will take this matter very seriously. I have very few proposals to make at the moment. May I make one request? I request that the Parliamentary Secretary, in this crisis—I know that he cannot offer money; we have not the time to vote it for him—should offer reassurance to the customers by announcing that at least all the administrative help and experience which the Board of Trade can offer will be immediately available to the consumers.
I wonder if the hon. Gentleman would put his lawyers on to the possibility of prosecuting for fraud cases where

vouchers are issued which purport to be travel documents but which are not backed by valid tickets actually purchased from the railways or airways or whatever, because this at least would obviate the danger that people are supplied with a book of vouchers which purport to entitle them to travel on a hospitality basis. I would have thought that even under the existing law it would have been possible to bring a test case to discourage people from doing that, and to point out to them that if they do it and vouchers are not properly backed—as seems to have happened in the case of Fiesta Tours—those responsible will be open to very severe penalties indeed.
This is a very humiliating position for the Government, because they have not shown energy enough in investigating deficiencies of the company law. Recently, they had a splendid opportunity, which they threw away last year for political reasons which we can well understand. I need not humiliate them now with that. Great opportunities have been missed, but they could be caught up with. I hope that we shall get an assurance now, because the Government have had to stand and watch a man get hold of a tourist agency in which was involved some £53,000 of other people's money and the shocked, bewildered, betrayed holiday-makers have had to be rescued by the British Travel Association which had to pay altogether £30,000 at short notice to meet the needs, whereas this wicked old man, who has been at the centre of it all, is pretending he has only got £7,500 of his own, which is, of course, nonsense.
I am hoping that the Parliamentary Secretary by this time may have ventured to see what the Secretary of State had to say when he had finished drinking his tea, and whether a specific announcement is to be made now. At least we hope an announcement of proposals to meet this situation to reassure the public will be made today.

7.52 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price): It is my task at this very late or middlish early hour, whichever is the appropriate term, to reply to the hon. Member for Padding-ton, North (Mr. Parkin), who, as he has told us, gave me notice that he would raise the subject of Government policy in


administering Section 165 of the Companies Act, 1948. It is to this subject that I shall address my remarks. In the course of his speech the hon. Member has gone a good deal wider than Section 165 and raised a number of other matters. During the middle watch the hon. Member did me the courtesy to mention to me some of those other specific matters he intended to raise. In so far as they went beyond the scope of Section 165 he will not expect me to be able to give a full answer now. I shall, of course, write to him when I have had the chance to examine these various points in detail and, whenever possible, point out the relevant facts to him.
I should just like to remind the House what Section 165 is all about. Section 165 of the Companies Act, 1948, reproduces Section 43(1) of the 1947 Act. I need not remind hon. Members that the 1947 Act was introduced by the late Sir Stafford Cripps. The 1948 Act was a consolidation Measure. The purpose of Section 165, according to the title of the Section, is
Investigation of company's affairs in other cases.
It is preceded by Section 164, which deals with
Investigation of company's affairs on application of members.
Section 165 deals with investigations other than, in the main, those made on the application of members. It falls into two parts which deal with different sets of circumstances. Section 165(a) lays down that the Board of Trade is bound to appoint an inspector or inspectors to investigate the affairs of a company in two specific cases. These are, first, where the company by special resolution has declared that its affairs ought to be investigated by an inspector appointed by the Board of Trade; secondly, where the court, having appropriate jurisdiction declares that the company's affairs ought to be investigated by an inspector appointed by the Board of Trade. These powers are not discretionary; they are mandatory upon the Board of Trade. The question of Government policy simply does not arise—indeed it cannot arise
Section 165(b) is different. The powers of the Board of Trade here are discretionary. They enable the Board to appoint an inspector or inspectors to investi-

gate a company if it appears to the Board that there are circumstances suggesting, first, that its business is being conducted with intent to defraud its creditors or the creditors of any other person or otherwise for a fraudulent or unlawful purpose or in a manner oppressive to any part of its members or that it was formed for any fraudulent or unlawful purpose; secondly, that persons concerned with its formation or the management of its affairs have in connection therewith been guilty of fraud, malfeasance or other misconduct towards it or towards its members; or thirdly, that its members have not been given the information which they might reasonably expect.
I point out that these are powers of discretion. The Board of Trade does not think it should light-heartedly embark on the appointment of inspectors. The mere knowledge that an inspector has been appointed could cause a company very considerable harm. The Board of Trade must therefore be reasonably satisfied that there are circumstances suggesting the various matters which are specified in Section 165(b) which I have quoted.
It might be of interest to the House in this connection for me to quote the comment in Palmer's "Company Law", 20th edition, probably the standard work on this subject, which makes this observation:
The power thus given to the Board of Trade is not readily exercised. Prima facie, shareholders in a company are expected to manage their own affairs in accordance with the company's constitution.
It is also worth reminding the House that the Jenkins Committee Report on Company Law thought the Board of Trade was right to be cautious in matters of this kind. However, it made certain suggestions which it will be more appropriate to discuss when the House considers further legislation—such as enabling the Board of Trade to make preliminary inquiries short of the formal appointment of an inspector. This would make it easier for the Board of Trade to discover, in doubtful cases, whether in certain circumstances Section 165(b) should be used.
Nevertheless, the Board of Trade causes inquiries to be made under this Section, possibly more frequently than the hon. Member realises. It will be of interest to the House to know that


since 1954 the Board has appointed inspectors on its own initiative to inquire into the affairs of 43 different companies. That includes the recent case of Rolls Razor Limited. The hon. Member asked how the Board of Trade decides to use these powers. Whether or not the Board of Trade appoints an inspector is determined by the particular circumstances of each case. I can assure the hon. Member that there is no question of a general Government policy in the exercise of these powers in terms of saying, "We shall not use them in relation to property companies, but we shall in relation to washing machine companies." It is a question of forming a view on the available information in each case, bearing in mind the criteria of Section 165(b). If at a later stage more information is made available, one can always reconsider the matter.

Mr. Parkin: The Minister quoted some important words from the Section. Would he not agree, in connection with the phrase "other fraudulent purposes", that if there has been a public scandal in which property companies in particular appear to have been used for fraudulent purposes—for purposes of defrauding people of their tenancies, for example—and are developing into a social problem generally, the Government would be justified, on political and social grounds, to interpret the phrase "other fraudulent purposes" in connection with those things?

Mr. Price: One would not be entitled to do so politically and merely say that one did not like the activities of a particular company. One would not be acting properly if one allowed those considerations to weigh in one's evaluation of the available information as to whether there had been a fraud. We must remember that there is moral fraud as well as legal fraud. We must, in these matters, deal with behaviour as it is likely to arise under the law and, in the ultimate, as it is likely to appear to a court of law. It is, as I say, a question of forming a view on the available information in each case and thus it happens in some cases—such as that which the hon. Member quoted, of Rolls Razor—that the Board of Trade is satisfied at a relatively early stage that there is a case

for the appointment of an inspector under Section 165.
The hon. Member raised the question of the Denecroft Estates Ltd., which was the subject of discussion between us last year, and last December he inquired of the Board of Trade whether we would appoint inspectors to go into the affairs of Denecroft Estates Ltd. in connection with the grant and disposal of leases on a number of properties, unknown to the company or its members.
The position was that the members of Denecroft Estates Ltd. must have been aware of the facts alleged. There were only three members of the company, who were all directors, and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained in his replies to Questions asked by the hon. Member on 5th and 9th December, 1963. there was no case for investigation since the material facts were known to Denecroft Estates Ltd. It was, therefore, open to the company to take any suitable legal steps to recover any moneys of which it might have been defrauded. Further, this company has made no approach to the Board of Trade on these matters.
As a matter of practice, we do not appoint inspectors when the facts are sufficiently known for those concerned to exercise their legal rights, if so minded. Nevertheless, if the hon. Member has any further information which he considers would bring the cases in which he is interested within the provisions of Section 165, we will consider it.
I entirely reject the charge that the Board of Trade does not investigate the affairs of what the hon. Member calls the Rachman companies for political purposes. It remains open for any hon. Member to produce information such as would lead us to take the view that a case came within the provisions of Section 165. We are always prepared to look at such matters again.
The hon. Member referred in an interjection to that part of Section 165(b)(i) which speaks of a company that has been used for
… a fraudulent or unlawful purpose …
and said that the Board of Trade should have made greater use of the Section. A business could hardly be said, in the


view of the Board of Trade, to be conducted with an unlawful purpose if, incidentally to its conduct for legitimate purposes, the civil rights of others were infringed. For example, with the introduction of noisy or badly-behaved tenants, the remedy is in the hands of those who are prejudiced. If the matter complained of involves considerable offences against criminal law, it would be an appropriate matter for the police to investigate. I should remind the House that the Board of Trade is not a general criminal investigation department—the police are. On the other hand, I would not pretend for a moment that there are not criminal circumstances in which we, rather than the police, might act first.
The hon. Gentleman raised the current issue of Fiesta Tours. Clearly, this case is very much in our minds at present. I should tell the House that no representations have been made to the Board of Trade for the appointment of an inspector, and on the information so far available there would not seem to be a case for such an appointment. None the less, we in the Board of Trade are seeking further information. If the hon. Member for Paddington, North, or any other hon. Member, has any specific information about this company, I should be very glad to receive it.
I should, however, add that, to be helpful, the information must be specific and related to specific matters. General information charging that Fiesta Tours have behaved badly is not quite the sort of information I seek. I seek more specific information. I assure the House that our minds are by no means closed on this subject, but we must have sufficient information to warrant an inquiry under this Section. I must point out, in passing, that the fact that a company has incurred liabilities which it is unable to meet is not in itself, of course, a ground for an appointment under Section 165, unless those liabilities were incurred in circumstances that suggest fraud.
The hon. Member also raised the question whether at the Board of Trade we would have an inquiry into tourist agencies. I am rather doubtful whether an inquiry is necessary, as I think that many of the facts are known. But, as I have replied on earlier occasions to Parliamentary Questions in the last few weeks, I can repeat to the hon. Gentle-

man that this matter is receiving our very close attention.
I prefer to write to the hon. Member on the subject of vouchers. He would not expect me, not being a lawyer—and I know that he is not, so he can probably sympathise with me—to give an off-the-cuff opinion, having been up all night, as to when a voucher may be said to constitute a ticket—to use the hon. Gentleman's term, is "legitimate"—and when, also in his term, it might be said to be an unsatisfactory bill of exchange. I will therefore write to him on this subject.
I would sum up by saying that we have in the administration of our discretionary powers under Section 165(b) to take into account the fact that this is a very important form of investigation, and that we must not use it lightly, as we might do considerable harm to companies. On the other hand, Parliament has given us these powers for a purpose, that we shall always fulfill provided we can get sufficient information which meets the various criteria laid down. The House will have observed that most of the criteria deal with fraud and fraudulent actions, and so on.
I repeat what I said to the hon. Member on what he calls the Rachman cases, that if he can give us more information we are always ready to look at it. As for Fiesta Tours, which has been the main burden of his argument this morning, I assure him that as far as we are concerned the matter is by no means closed. Any information that he or any other hon. Member can give us will be extremely welcome.

SCOTLAND (GENERAL TEACHING COUNCIL)

8.11 a.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: Except to those officers and other servants of the House who have had to wait up all night, I make no apology for speaking at this time of the morning, because I feel that I am speaking on behalf of the right of every Scottish child to have a full and worthwhile education. I want to deal only with one aspect of the matter—the Wheatley Committee's Report on "The Teaching Profession in Scotland" and its recommendations.
In November 1961, the Secretary of State for Scotland appointed that Committee with Lord Wheatley as its chairman and, in June 1963, the Committee made its Report. The Secretary of State therefore has had the full Report for 13 months. I was not challenged when I said in the recent general debate on education that the Secretary of State had asked interested bodies to give him their views on the Report by January of this year at the latest. The right hon. Gentleman therefore has had these views before him for six months.
On 2nd July, in the general debate on Scottish education, I asked the right hon. Gentleman if any decisions had been reached on the Committee's recommendation that a General Teaching Council should be set up. Neither the Secretary of State who followed me in that debate nor the noble Lady the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who wound up, and who will be replying this morning, felt that this matter was of such importance that it should have received attention from one or other of the Ministers, because not a word was said in either speech about this matter which is considered of the greatest importance in Scotland.
I have received a letter from the noble Lady dealing with some matters with which she had no time to deal when she wound up the debate on that occasion. I have no complaint that she could not find the time in a half hour's speech to deal with every point raised in a whole day's debate, and I am grateful to her for the letter dealing with the oustanding points. But the gist of my complaint against the right hon. Gentleman and the noble Lady is that the question of a decision on the Wheatley recommendation was not considered of sufficient importance to merit a reply in the general debate.
I am sorry to say that the contents of the noble Lady's letter dealing with the Wheatley Report and its recommendations confirm the doubts and suspicions which I voiced on 2nd July. These suspicions are entertained by almost all the teachers in Scotland and everyone else who is in the least interested in Scottish education. The Wheatley Committee, after having gone carefully

into all the pros and cons, finally came to the conclusion that a General Teaching Council should be set up. I want to quote from Recommendation (5) of this Report:
Twenty-one of the 44 members should be certificated teachers serving in schools, further education centres and colleges of education and elected by teachers.
I think that in the light of the reply that I received from the noble Lady, it is important to call attention to this recommendation. The Wheatley Committee made it perfectly clear that 21 out of 44 members should be practising teachers; in other words, that practising teachers should not have a majority of the membership.
I want now to quote from the letter from the noble Lady. She said:
Any Minister who is responsible for education to which the supply of teachers is vital has to weigh this kind of issue carefully before reaching decisions, particularly when we are looking ahead to the challenge of the raising of the school leaving age in 1970. Conflict could arise between the national interest—the need for an adequate supply of teachers—and the professional interest to maintain or raise standards.
I take grave objection to those words. Bearing in mind the statement in Recommendation (5) that not a majority of practising teachers would be on the Council, I just cannot understand how the noble Lady or the Secretary of State could suggest that the teachers would have the power to act irresponsibly, something they would never do.
I want now to turn to paragraph 97 on page 30 of the Report:
The question of supply of teachers is affected by various considerations, and such matters as salaries and conditions of service involve the Government, the local authorities and the teaching profession jointly. It does not fall within our remit to find a solution to this problem of supply. We are satisfied, however, that an opportunity for the profession to enlarge and enhance its prestige in the public eye will play its part in helping to solve the problem.
This Committee is not composed wholly of teachers. Indeed, if we look at the names of the members of the Committee we see Lord Wheatley, Lady Baird, J. O. Blair-Cunynghame and a number of other outstanding people in Scotland who have nothing to do with the teaching profession. They said that if this General Teaching Council were set up, it would do much to enhance the


status of the whole profession and would play its part in helping to solve this problem of the supply of teachers.
When I read the noble Lady's letter I begin to wonder if the Secretary of State or the noble Lady have really read this Report and if they realise that the Report, which was made by most eminent Scottish people, was unanimous. I want to quote from Recommendation (15) on page 59 of the Report. It states:
The Teaching Council should not have complete control of standards for admission to training.
Did the noble Lady know that when she wrote this letter?
Considerations of public and Parliamentary interest require that the Secretary of State for Scotland, rather than the Privy Council or other body, must retain a say in these matters, especially as he is the logical channel for the exercise of Parliamentary control".
What more does the Secretary of State want than that? I draw attention to all the Committee's recommendations since they are of the greatest importance in turning aside the statement which the noble Lady made in her letter to me.
It has been a tragedy for Scottish education that we have not a Scottish Minister who has any personal knowledge of Scottish education or its tradition. Time and again, this lack of real personal knowledge has done great harm to our system. Throughout the 13 years of Tory rule since 1951, there has been only one Scottish member of the Government who has taken any real part of his education within Scotland, and that was the late Sir James Henderson-Stewart.
Not long ago, the Prime Minister said in Glasgow,
For the first time, the pattern of Scottish education is now set for generations ahead".
Does the right hon. Gentleman know anything about Scottish education today? If the pattern today is the one which is set for generations ahead, it is nothing for the Prime Minister to be proud of. Is he proud of the fact that we have at present a shortage of about 3,500 teachers, that we have over 2,500 uncertificated teachers, and about 500 of them are very badly substandard? Is he proud of the fact that hundreds of fully qualified Scottish students are unable to enter university? That is the pattern of Scottish education now, and it is the one

which the Prime Minister says is set for generations to come.
I beg the noble Lady to tell us this morning that the Government have decided to set up this General Teaching Council, for the very reasons which are so admirably set forth in the parts of the Report to which I have referred. We must do everything possible to attract teachers.
I refer again to the threat which is contained in the noble Lady's letter to me—
Conflict could arise between … the need for an adequate supply of teachers and the professional interest to maintain or raise standards".
I and the whole body of teachers in Scotland realise that, for many educational purposes in these modern times, we shall have to have many of our teachers with qualifications different from those at present accepted, but this is by no means the same as having teachers with substandard qualifications.
I am sure that the body of Scottish teachers would co-operate to the full with the Secretary of State in trying to attract the different types of people that we need in our schools, and I am also sure that they would have no hesitation in saying that for many of these different types of teachers different qualifications are necessary. My fear is that the Government have every intention of lowering the qualifications for our primary schools and for the academic subjects in our secondary schools, and that, because that is their intention, they are opposed to the setting up of this General Teaching Council.
Surely the Secretary of State and the noble Lady must realise by now the cynicism which they have engendered amongst Scottish teachers. If we want to increase the supply of teachers, if we want to ensure that every child has a full and worthwhile education, we must take the Scottish teachers with us. We must make full use of their great experience, and we must trust them, which is what this Government have not done.
We shall adjourn for the Summer Recess on Friday. If no announcement is made today, I promise the Scottish teachers that after the General Election a Labour Government will set up a General Teaching Council for Scotland.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I am afraid the hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak.

8.27 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lady Tweedsmuir): I am glad that the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) has seen fit to raise this subject of the Wheatley Report on the setting up of a General Teaching Council for Scotland, because, as the hon. Lady rightly said, this is a matter of great importance.
During the debate on Scottish Education on 2nd July, the hon. Lady urged that the Secretary of State should take, or should have taken, much swifter action to carry out the Wheatley recommendations
to improve education prospects."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1964, Vol. 697 c. 1578.]
She suggested then that my right hon. Friend had decided to reject the Wheatley Committee recommendations. I should like to say quite emphatically that that is not the case. The Secretary of State is giving a great deal of thought to this problem, and is weighing all the various factors.
I should like to go in some detail—although I hope not at too great length at this time of the morning, for the benefit of other hon. Members—into the reasons why I wrote that paragraph in my letter to the hon. Lady which she has quoted to the House.
I should like also to refer to the fact that the hon. Lady asked why it was that when I had the responsibility of winding up the debate on 2nd July I did not deal with her remarks about the Wheatley Report. She will recall that, primarily, I was speaking in answer to the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) who preceded me and spent a great deal of time on the subject of the universities and the new relationship to teaching generally in Scotland.
I singled out some of the points which the hon. Lady made, particularly on teacher supply and on uncertificated teachers, and it was because I was conscious that I could not deal with every-

thing in the time available that I wrote to the hon. Lady singling out, among others, this particular point. What I tried to make clear once again was that the main reason why the Secretary of State was taking time to weigh up all the factors was that he had a primary responsibility to the country and to Parliament for education in Scotland. An important part of education is the standard which we require for the admission of students to training for the teaching profession.
As the hon. Lady has said, the Wheatley Committee proposed that control over those standards should pass, with certain safeguards, to a General Teaching Council, which the Committee called
a real and substantial change in the balance of power".
Such a council, however responsible and public spirited it might be, would have a strictly limited field of responsibility, yet within that limited field, if the spirit of Wheatley were carried out, it would exercise very real powers. Outside that field, however, as the hon. Lady has said, the Secretary of State would retain all the powers and responsibilities which he has at present. It would not be the job of the council, for example, to have regard to the whole field of education.
The hon. Lady questioned one part of my paragraph, but I would say to her that it is not inconceivable that a difference of opinion might arise between the Secretary of State, with his general responsibilities, and the council, with its particular responsibilities; and the Wheatley Report particularly recognised this.
I should like to read to the hon. Lady the important paragraph 102 of the Wheatley Report:
From what we have said it will appear that in regard to teachers' qualifications we have found it necessary to consider the public interest and the professional interest as separate entities. This is not to say that the two will necessarily often—or, indeed, ever—be in opposition to one another. But the possibility must be faced that they may not always coincide. We think it essential that the place of Parliament, as representative of the public interest, should be maintained in this field. The problem, then, is to devise a method by which the legitimate aspirations of the profession towards a greater measure of authority over standards of entrance to training can be reconciled with the need to retain Parliamentary responsibility.


Therefore, in that paragraph of my letter, I was quoting a fact which the Wheatley Committee asked us to face.

Miss Herbison: It is because I know the Report so thoroughly that I wondered whether the Secretary of State or the noble Lady had read it. The Wheatley Committee, which went carefully into the matter, pointed out what it had to point out in paragraph 102 and still came to the conclusion that a General Teaching Council should be set up with some of the safeguards which I have quoted. The noble Lady is helping our case this morning.

Lady Tweedsmuir: It is clear from the fact that I quote at length from the Report, as is only right, that I and, certainly, also my right hon. Friend have, naturally, given, and are giving, all these factors great weight, because the final responsibility must rest upon my right hon. Friend. He has to take everything into account. The Wheatley Committee itself said, in paragraph 7:
Our subject has proved to be one of great difficulty and complexity, one on which hasty judgments are liable to be ill-advised.

Miss Herbison: Hear, hear.

Lady Tweedsmuir: What is the reason for that? What are the factors which the Secretary of State has to look at at this time? There is the raising of the school leaving age. As I told the House on 2nd July, on the Robbins Committee's estimate we shall, in 1970, have a shortage of 4,300 teachers, a shortage which, at the present rate of recruitment, should disappear by 1976 or by 1977 at the latest, but about which we must all obviously be concerned.
Then there is the rapidly expanding further education programme and there are new types of secondary courses, especially vocational. The Brunton Report "From School to Further Education" foresaw a rapidly accelerating rate of expansion and a need for
many more teachers with specialist technical qualifications … many more who are capable of dealing with a wide range of general subjects
and a need for
the colleges of education … to provide appropriate courses for all categories of teachers".
So it is in this difficult situation that my right hon. Friend feels that he cannot give up, without very deep thought, a

large part of his responsibility for teacher supply.
The hon. Lady quoted the first half of paragraph 97. I should like to quote the second half because I think they hang together. The Wheatley Committee said:
Nevertheless, we think that it would be impossible and, indeed, wholly unreasonable to require the Secretary of State to exercise his ultimate responsibility and answer in Parliament for the supply of teachers if at the same time the standards of entry to the profession were completely outwith his jurisdiction and in the hands of a professional body for which he had no responsibility and over which he had no authority.
That is why it thinks he must have a say in teacher training.
It cannot be argued that the unavoidable delay in reaching a decision on this recommendation has had any effect on teacher recruitment and supply in Scotland, because the Committee said in paragraph 54:
We do not think that the case for such a transfer of functions can be argued on the ground that the existing arrangements, including essentially the certification of teachers by the Secretary of State, are defective or inefficient.
We have an all-time record, happily, of certificated teachers employed in our schools—nearly 40,000, a 20 per cent. rise since 1951. There is also no shortage of recruits for our training colleges, and the facilities are being rapidly expanded. As the hon. Lady knows, two new colleges are to be opened this October.
The hon. Lady laid great stress, as she did also in the debate on 2nd July, on uncertificated teachers. I said then that of these only about 400 out of 2,425, a tiny minority compared to the nearly 40,000 certificated teachers, have substandard paper qualifications, and, therefore, the establishment of a Wheatley Council of itself would not make any difference to the employment of these teachers.
The hon. Lady also suggested this morning that my right hon. Friend has it in mind to introduce what I imagine she meant was dilution of the teaching profession in Scotland—presumably the employment of non-graduate male teachers of general subjects. Obviously, this is one of the factors which my right hon. Friend must consider in the whole question of teacher supply, but he has,


of course, by no means made his mind up one way or the other.

Mr. Dalyell: In her list of factors, would the noble Lady not give perhaps the real reason? Is it not a fact that the real problem is that it would alter the position in England? Is this not a cause of delay? Is she aware that both the National Association of Schoolmasters and the National Union of Teachers are now making approaches to her right hon. Friend to get a Wheatley Council for England? Would it not be better to give this explanation?

Lady Tweedsmuir: The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is surely aware that Scotland has its different education system and is quite capable of having its own different education arrangements.
But certainly Brunton has underlined the need for a fresh approach to some aspects of staffing, and this is a need which is increasingly recognised, I think, by the teaching profession, and I believe that the hon. Lady also recognises it. Therefore, I would say that it is at this time quite true that we are entering a very interesting, indeed a most exciting, era in education in Scotland, and it is a time when we can expect great changes and when a new flexibility will be needed from all concerned—teachers, education authorities, Government Departments and parents. The Wheatley Council or a general teaching council for Scotland is but one aspect of this vast changing field in education, and my right hon. Friend is determined that a decision here must be wisely made at the right time.

COMMON SEAL (PROTECTION)

8.40 a.m.

Mr. Anthony Fell: There are more hon. Members present in the Chamber now than there have been during the last 14 hours. I do not flatter myself, having been an hon. Member for 13 years, and having got to know something of my colleagues, that this has anything to do with the subject I wish to discuss. I think, rather, that most of them have surfaced hoping that they are about to go home and have breakfast.
I should explain that the fact that no representative of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is here is entirely due to my intervention in this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) and I saw my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary yesterday afternoon. He was very kind to us and we discussed the situation that has arisen with him.
As far as I can gather, unfortunately only two types of seal are protected in this country—the grey seal and—in a rather different way—the Lord Privy Seal. I am sorry that he is not here. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I have an apology to make to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. We agreed on a statement, but in my hurried writing of it I left out two rather important words. I should have said:
He"—
the Joint Parliamentary Secretary—
added that where culling of the common seal which does damage to inshore fishing is necessary he hopes it will be done in a humane manner.
Unfortunately, I left out the words "he hopes". I appologise for that slip, but he will, I believe, apologise to me for something else so we will, no doubt, call it quits. I thank him on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn and myself for the courteous and most helpful way in which he received us and for agreeing to make a statement. It is partly out of this statement that the difficulty arises.
Those of us interested in seals know that the grey seal is protected for certain periods of the year, but that the common seal is not protected at all. The Ministry of Agriculture has, I think—one never likes to be too certain on these things—been labouring under a misapprehension in that it told us that the only recourse that could be had for inhumane treatment of the common seal was prosecution under the Protection of Animals Act, 1911. I shall not quote extensively from the Act but only enough to show why I believe that the Ministry is labouring under a misapprehension. It says:
If any person shall cruelly beat, kick, ill-treat,"—
it does not refer to the Lord Privy Seal—
torture infuriate, or terrify any animal"—
and it goes on to give other instances.
One would have thought that in English "any animal" meant "any animal", but when we get to the definition of the words, we are told that "any animal" does not mean "any animal" at all. The expression "animal'' means any domestic or captive animal. Therefore, the only way in which to bring a prosecution against someone maltreating a common seal would be to find him having captured a common seal standing with his foot on its tail—if it has a tail—and bashing its head with a stick. That would be a captive seal being ill-treated. I believe that that is the right interprelation of the Act, and the R.S.P.C.A. has had the greatest difficulty because of it.

Mr. Denys Bullard: There is another possible method of dealing with this matter which we did not discuss yesterday although we should have done. Because of the value of seal skins when the common seals are shot in the water, people are shooting the animals from boats and skinning them in the boats and then tossing the carcasses into the sea from where they are washed up on the coasts of Norfolk. I do not know whether it is in order for carcasses to be tossed into the sea, but if someone tossed a carcass into the sea from the shore, he would probably be subject to prosecution. This is a disgraceful matter and that angle of the subject, too, should be considered.

Mr. Fell: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention.
I have a letter written by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Commander Kerans) by a lady in Norwich which my hon. and gallant Friend has given me permission to quote. It says:
Matters here are getting worse and worse because of the slaughter on the Wash. I saw that yesterday. I went to that coast with my husband and we proved some very upsetting rumours for ourselves. The beach attendant at Hunstanton is having quite a time clearing up corpses and dying seals both adults and babies. At Hunstanton a heavy bundle of two adult and five baby seals all skinned and tied up with rope was washed right to the end of the pier.
I will not go on. This is horrible at any time of the day and especially at this time of the morning before one has had breakfast. But that is what has caused this row.
Seals have been killed for a number of years. This is important for fishermen, especially the salmon fishermen in the North. The trouble is that there has been a lot of publicity in the last 12 months about the value of the skins which have been bringing £5 and £7 10s. a pelt. We are now getting crowds of youths, using 22 rifles and any other weapons they can get hold of, going out in boats and shooting blind. Shooting blind is bad when the animal is hit but not destroyed. This is the cause of the furore in Norfolk and this is what is worrying people in East Anglia so much.
We have always prided ourselves on our love of animals. I have the greatest respect for the Australians, but I would not like to think that the British were falling behind the Australians in our love of animals and our respect for the way in which they should be treated. However, the Australians had a problem with kangaroos. People were chasing masses of them for long distances until the animals fell down. They were then knocking the kangaroos on the head and carting them into town and selling them as hamburgers.
At any rate, this was taken up by a number of people in Australia, and the Australian Government found a way of stopping it. I really think that the Government are in a bit of a difficulty about this, but I have no doubt, in view of the very kindly way and sincere manner in which my hon. Friend and I were received by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture that they will want to do something about this.
It seems that we have now got to the position where the poor common seal is not, in fact, protected in any way, either by the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, or by the sort of protection afforded to the grey seal because of its greater rarity. I must say in passing that I think all of us, when we were kids, were fond of seals—almost as fond as of any other kind of toy. I really find it difficult to see a difference between the look of the grey seal and the common seal. They are both very nice animals which have afforded us a lot of pleasure.
When I began, I said how surprised I was to find such a large number of hon. Members present in the Chamber


after 18 hours of debate. Owing to what has been going on in the last two or three minutes, I am not only surprised; I am not at all sure that I am completely happy about it either. One thing is clear—I really must stop and let everybody go home to breakfast. But I must say this. We did appeal in a statement we issued for people to send us or the R.S.P.C.A. evidence of cruelty in the killing of the common seal, but, in fact, this is not possible because the Act of 1911 is so framed, I believe, that one cannot get the evidence at all.
This is why I want to appeal to the better nature of those people who just go in for the killing of the common seal to pick up a few pounds here and there to stop this business and leave those who really are practised in it and who know what they are doing to do it only where it is necessary. I also want to appeal to people who read about this to really give these boys a bit of a belting or a bit of a rough time if they carry on doing it. I appeal finally to the Government to try to find a way to get over this business, which really has become a disgrace in East Anglia.

8.53 a.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I do not intend to detain the House very long, but I have a very special interest in these charming animals. I have a zoological gardens in my constituency and I have admired their appearance for many years.
The House will recall the sad occasion when a preacher went to the cliffside to preach and thought afterwards that he had comforted many thousands of persons, only to find afterwards that he

had been talking to seals who had come to listen to him. I hope that my hon. Friend's seductive words and charming sentences will not bring the seals to the seashore in their thousands to be slaughtered in this inhumane fashion, and I wish him every success.

8.55 a.m.

Sir Peter Agnew: I also do not wish to detain the House, but I want to make one point which is relevant to the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill. It appears that the procedure on the Bill has become somewhat perverted, and extra expense has been occurred in the Bill which could have been saved if the House had not to sit all night for what has been nothing more than a series of Adjournment debates, for which a more convenient hour could surely have been provided before the close of the Session.
While it reflects the fair play with which the present Government have always associated themselves in their treatment of Private Members, nevertheless it does not redound to the credit of our Parliamentary procedure within the context of modernisation, and it involves the spending of money through the unnecessary use of time throughout the night in this way.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved,
That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pym.]

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Nine o'clock a.m.